From the people who suffer directly from Jones.

An open letter to Mark Zuckerberg: our child died at Sandy Hook – why let Facebook lies hurt us even more?

Dear Mr Zuckerberg,

Our names are Lenny Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa. We are the parents of Noah, who on 14 December, 2012, at the age of six, was gunned down in his classroom at Sandy Hook elementary school. Since that day, we, as well as the parents, family, and friends of the 25 other victims, have been embroiled in a constant battle with social media providers, including Facebook, to protect us from harassment and threats.

Almost immediately after the massacre of 20 little children, all under the age of seven, and six elementary school teachers and staff, the attacks on us began. Conspiracy groups and anti-government provocateurs began making claims on Facebook that the massacre was a hoax, that the murdered were so-called “crisis actors” and that their audience should rise up to “find out the truth” about our families. These claims and calls to action spread across Facebook like wildfire and, despite our pleas, were protected by Facebook.

While terms you use, like “fake news” or “fringe conspiracy groups”, sound relatively innocuous, let me provide you with some insight into the effects of allowing your platform to continue to be used as an instrument to disseminate hate. We have endured online, telephone, and in-person harassment, abuse, and death threats. In fact, one of the abusers was sentenced to jail for credible death threats that she admitted in court she had uttered because she believed in online content created by these “fringe groups”. In order to protect ourselves and our surviving children, we have had to relocate numerous times. These groups use social media, including Facebook, to “hunt” us, posting our home address and videos of our house online. We are currently living in hiding. We are far from alone in our experiences, as many other families who have lost loved ones in mass shootings and other tragedies have reported the same continuing torment.

Our families are in danger as a direct result of the hundreds of thousands of people who see and believe the lies and hate speech, which you have decided should be protected. What makes the entire situation all the more horrific is that we have had to wage an almost inconceivable battle with Facebook to provide us with the most basic of protections to remove the most offensive and incendiary content.

In your recent interview with Kara Swisher of Recode, you were asked why Facebook would allow an organization to post a conspiracy theory claiming that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged. While you implied that Facebook would act more quickly to take down harassment directed at Sandy Hook victims than, say, the posts of Holocaust deniers, that is not our experience. In fact, you went on to suggest that this type of content would continue to be protected and that your idea for combatting incendiary content was to provide counterpoints to push “fake news” lower in search results. Of course, this provides no protection to us at all. It would require people writing articles and making posts about our family and the massacre in the same quantity and read and spread by the same numbers as those who post and publish the hoax content. Since few are writing about a school shooting from six years ago, especially when other mass shootings have followed, only the Sandy Hook “hoax” information appears and is spread, giving increased credence to the hateful, dangerous content. If your goal is truly to provide protection to us and remove dangerous and malicious content quickly, may we suggest the following:

Treat victims of mass shootings and other tragedies as a protected group, such that attacks on them are specifically against Facebook policy.

Provide affected people with access to Facebook staff who will remove hateful and harassing posts against victims immediately.

Facebook plays a mammoth role in exposing the world’s masses to information. That level of power comes with the tremendous responsibility of ensuring that your platform is not used to harm others or contribute to the proliferation of hate. Yetit appears that under the guise of free speech, you are prepared to give license to people who make it their purpose to do just that.

After the death of our son and the bewildering attacks on our family and the families of the other victims, we began to hear from the people affected by other mass shootings and tragedies who were suffering similar abuse on Facebook. In response to the overt disregard shown by Facebook, we founded HONR.com with the mission of providing assistance to those being targeted online by mob hate.

After feeling so much hope following your pledge in the Senate to make Facebook a safer and more hospitable place for social interaction, we are once again feeling let down by your recent comments supporting a safe harbor for Holocaust deniers and hate groups that attack victims of tragedy.

Our son Noah no longer has a voice, nor will he ever get to live out his life. His absence is felt every day. But we are unable to properly grieve for our baby or move on with our lives because you, arguably the most powerful man on the planet, have deemed that the attacks on us are immaterial, that providing assistance in removing threats is too cumbersome, and that our lives are less important than providing a safe haven for hate.

Sincerely,

Leonard Pozner & Veronique De La Rosa

Parents of Noah Pozner, Sandy Hook shooting victim

zn wrote:

Another.

“He likes your lemonade.”
Lawrence of Arabia.

Also from the same scene: “that’s alright, we’re not particular”

Have watched LOA several times, and it never gets old for me. A lot of movies do after a few viewings, but it never does.

A host of great acting performances, but O’Toole’s is just off the charts great. He was possessed by Lawrence, as Lawrence was by that land.

I think it’s both.

Gotta end police brutality and all aspects of “living while black” oppression.

They called the police on this black woman the other day for giving food to a homeless person!!

So, yeah, economic, social and environmental justice.

But they need to also stop playing the anthem or pushing militarism down our throats at every game.

Just play the game. Anyone who actually wants “politics” removed from sports should be in favor of getting rid of all the pregame politics they don’t seem to recognize exists.

(I was banned from the Herd in large part for bringing this up. Still don’t know by whom.)

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

…and they were unanimous in saying that Russia interfered in 2016 and are trying to subvert the election now. Again, this is his own, hand-picked crew. …

————–

Ok, but you already know my thing on this. How do you ‘subvert’ a corporotacray’s ‘election.’

It was already subverted before it began. The corporate money and corporate propaganda, and corporate media and corporate support systems already subverted it.

I mean what was left for the russians to subvert? Putin wanted Trump instead of Hillary. He wanted corporate-puppet A instead of corporate puppet B.

I suppose thats a type of subversion…but..really? A ‘big story’ ?

w
v

My thing isn’t really about what Russia did or what Russia wants, though I think we should defend ourselves from their attacks.

My main thing is to hold Americans accountable if they accepted help from Russia, and that goes for anyone, from any party, not just Trump.

For me, the reason why this is a huge story is because of that. Because we have someone in the White House who very likely — I actually have no doubt whatsoever — willingly accepted, and/or solicited, help from foreign agents to win an election, thus breaking our election laws. He then lied repeatedly about having any contacts at all with the Russians, finally admitted to the contacts, then engaged in a sustained effort to undermine the investigation into his law-breaking.

IMO, the acceptance/solicitation of help, the endless lies and coverup, and the subsequent obstruction of justice . . . by the current president . . . is huge. To me, it dwarfs Watergate. It makes Nixon look like a choirboy in comparison.

As for the corporatocracy . . . I have no idea how to kill it, and like those old bug spray commercials, we need to kill it dead. It’s destroying the planet. Though, as you know, I think it goes deeper than just corporations. I think it’s capitalism itself that does this, that guarantees this.

Could Sanders counter it? Maybe a bit. It’s going to take generations of people like him to put the final nail in the coffin of capitalism, for a host of reasons, including the dumbing down you speak of. But also because capitalists have managed to set up a system of taxpayer bailouts which keeps the system going even after it should go down for the count, forever, by all rights.

No economic system in world history, in fact, has ever set up so many fail-safes — all on our dime.

wv wrote:

Well i agree with the thrust of that article, as yall know.

I dont think i agree that trump is putin’s puppet though. I think putin and trump share some ideas, and disagree on some things. I think they will cooperate sometimes and will behttp://theramshuddle.com/reply/88882/edit/ at odds sometimes.

My own personal thing is…I am like Moe hearing the words “niagra falls” when i hear the DEM-msm talking about russia. Its so obviously a hypocritical bullshit stance coming from THEM. It appalls me. Sets me off. Ni..ag..ra Falls…step by step….

w
v

I agree about a lot of that, WV. I don’t think Trump is Putin’s puppet, per se. But he does exhibit a strange reluctance to ever, ever criticize him by name. Trump shows no such reluctance when it comes to a host of Americans, black and brown people, NFL players, NBA players, Democrats, European leaders, NATO, the EU and the Media. And not only is he okay criticizing everyone but Putin, he seems to love going after them aggressively, viciously, and without concern for their safety. See his most recent rally and the mob surrounding Jim Acosta from CNN.

I think it’s safe to say that Trump owes a lot to Putin. The evidence points to that being the survival of the Trump family business. He had gone bankrupt six times and was pretty much down for the count. No one would lend to him, because he stiffed so many banks.

Suddenly, out of nowhere, he was buying up golf courses and other real estate with cash. Out of the blue. His son Eric said it was Russian money, and I think Mueller has all the evidence he needs to prove this.

To me, it’s always been about debt to Putin. Business arrangements. Owing a ton to him. And the illegalities involved whenever anyone deals with oligarchs from any country, including America. It’s not a question of “treason,” in my view. It’s a question of Trump’s repeated breaking of the law, before, during and after the campaign.

He needs to be held accountable.

Lotsa good points in that article.

A few of the most frustrating things for me, when discussing Russia-gate, especially with (a few) fellow leftists in other venues:

1. Standards of evidence, thresholds for belief in evidence, seem highly selective. As in, if a leftist reads a single article, or sees a single video, in which someone asserts “The CIA recently did X, Y and Z,” most will immediately accept this as factual. But show them 50 articles with in-depth, comprehensive break-downs of Russian connections with the Trump campaign and administration, and it’s (in so many words) “Fake news.” They won’t accept it. I’ve bumped into more than a few on other sites who refuse to read it, period, while repeating the mantra, “Prove it!!” Um, I just did.

2. There is a major issue of “whataboutism” in this case. It’s kind of like, when someone says “Second hand smoke kills 40,000 Americans a year,” another will say, “Well, 400,000 people die from smoking directly! Who cares about second-hand smoke!” Throw in “hypocrisy” and this is supposed to make us shut up about second hand smoke (Russia-gate), etc. etc. Um, we can talk about both, right?

3. Leftists who fight to dismiss, poo-pah or seek to shut down discussions regarding Russia often resort to the most absurd strawmen. In so many words, it’s “The Dems keep saying Russia has taken over and controls all American life, Trump is a traitor and a Manchurian candidate, and they keep beating the drums of war!!” Um, no. I’ve never seen any Dem express the wildly exaggerated claims pushed by this faction of leftists, and, again, the most aggressive on the Putin question are Republican Never Trumpers. It’s not even close. To me, the Dems have been far too quiet on the issue, having decided long ago to let Trump hang himself, for the most part.

Etc. etc.

wv wrote:

Jesse on, Syria and some stuff.

Good video. Ventura is correct.

And, as your article mentions, they could include the threats to annihilate Iran, which Trump recently made over Twitter.

His tariffs are un-Constitutional as well. The Constitution gives all the power over Commerce, foreign and domestic, to Congress. None is given to the president.

I’ve said it before . . . but if we zoom out, take the bird’s eye view of the two parties, and the results of their respective time in the Captain’s chair . . . we see these stark differences:

Endless war . . . or endless war

Ever expanding surveillance state (public and private) . . . or ever expanding surveillance state (public and private)

Skyrocketing inequality . . . or skyrocketing inequality

Capital over Labor . . . or Capital over Labor

Leading the world in incarceration rates . . . or leading the world in incarceration rates

etc. etc.

IMO, WV, Carlson is full of shit. As is Page.

It’s also incredibly hypocritical that Carlson and other right-wingers suddenly have found their inner civil libertarian, but still won’t call for an actual overhaul of our surveillance system. They’re just upset because it’s currently focusing on their own boy.

I’m guessing you and I are pretty much on the same page, in that we need to radically rope it all in. But that’s not what Fox news hosts or Republicans in Congress are talking about. Their only concern is that the surveillance net has fallen on some folks on their team. They want it to go after their political enemies instead, and have never, ever mentioned curtailing its powers overall.

Trump, in fact, tweets for it being used against his political enemies all the time. It seems he can’t go a day without calling on Clinton or others in the Obama White House to be jailed.

Again, will post a bit more later.

Hope all is well, WV.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 3 months ago by Billy_T.

Now, does he make great points when it comes to all the rah rah praise for the FBI and various intel agencies, especially given their history? Yeah. Definitely. But, again, that’s both parties, with a carve out for Republicans who have sold their souls to protect Trump at all costs.

It can be cringe-worthy to watch that in the hearings, on C-Span, for instance, etc. Even appalling at times.

But that’s been the game for both parties for a long, long time. They’ve jockeyed for the position of “Most Patriotic evah” forever, totally misunderstanding what that means, or how it should be demonstrated. Like, “Support the Troops!!” etc. etc. How about NOT sending them into harm’s way for once?

Anyway, it’s frustrating for me to read or watch pundits from across the spectrum seemingly so out of sync with reality. In the age of Trump, it’s virtually contagious.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

I agree that Behar was good in the moment, but it seemed like McCain just talked over her. I also agree that “pedantic” won’t win hearts and minds, nor will wonkiness, a Democratic Party specialty.

But I’m st1ill not convinced that blurring the lines between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism is the right way to go.

What’s your take on that, WV? Do you see that as the best strategy? If not, what is your preferred method/best practices, when it comes to this topic?

=====================

Well BT, your guess is as good as mine. I dunno. I know that it depends on yer audience. Ya know. And the general tv-audience that watches THAT show is…I’m guessing… essentially MSM-Dems. Do they care about the distinction between Socialist-Dem and Dem-Socialist? I suspect that would lose their attention, and sound pedantic and the rightwinger would just roll over them with the usual “Venezuela! Stalin!” type shit.

I think Ocasio and Bernie and the Justice-Dems are getting it mostly right (given the limited Political-IQ of the voting public). They just harp on specific issues. Medicare for All. Free College. (although i think they need a better term than ‘free college.’ That term raises alarm bells with conservative types)

When the corpse-media asks them what is a socialist? Isnt it a murderous treasonous thing? They just calmly go “It means I’m for medicare for all, free college, a higher minimum wage, etc”

I wonder if it would behoove them to connect themselves with FDR? I dunno.
(I mean they arent ‘really’ socialists but who cares. They are as far left as we can go right now, today, in the US)

I also think I have never ever seen a Clinton-Dem do what that lady just did in that vid. The listing of the Norwegian nations. I…have…not…seen that before in that context. Ever. To me thats…..noteworthy. And yes the vile Rep talked over it and didnt address it…which is a good sign. She couldnt handle it. That list.

w
v

Lotsa good points. And I think you’re right. The embrace of the Nordic model is kinda stunning — and about time. You know I’d prefer to go further than that. But, sheeesh!! Upgrading to the Scandinavian model would be relatively awesome. That ties in with the Ocasio-Cortez response too. Repeating those programs. It does make sense . . .

Which reminds me of a recent dynamic I’ve bumped into online. I think righties are getting a message to counter this. I have no proof of that. Just a hunch. They’re starting to fight back against the idea that the Scandinavia countries are “socialist,” calling them capitalist, social welfare nations instead. They point to Venezuela as a real socialist nation, even though we all know it’s not. So, strangely enough, they get this partially correct, but for obviously sick reasons.

Basically, if it’s not a “Stalinist hell hole” of one variety or another, in their eyes, it’s not “socialist.”

Which brings me to another stance I think makes a ton of sense: We just shouldn’t care what righties think about these things. It really doesn’t matter and they’re not going to be persuaded by anything we say to begin with. Evah. IMO, our focus should be on winning hearts and minds that can be won.

That’s not right of center — with extremely rare exceptions. As in, virtually non-existent.

wv wrote:

One Thing i liked though, was when the Pro-Hillary-liberal was challenged with the usual “Where has socialism ever worked?”, she calmly listed Scandanavian nations. She didnt get all flustered or get all pedantic and boring. It was a good answer. And coming from her, it shocked me to be honest. I took it as a sign maybe the libs are getting a little better at this socialism discussion thing. I dunno.

w
v

I agree that Behar was good in the moment, but it seemed like McCain just talked over her. I also agree that “pedantic” won’t win hearts and minds, nor will wonkiness, a Democratic Party specialty.

But I’m still not convinced that blurring the lines between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism is the right way to go.

What’s your take on that, WV? Do you see that as the best strategy? If not, what is your preferred method/best practices, when it comes to this topic?

I still wish someone would bring this up in these “debates,” when people try to scare the audience with the S word.

Guess who called themselves democratic socialists, audience? Guess who wrote essays and books on the subject, and led social and economic justice movements as democratic socialists? Guess who led peace movements and human rights campaigns as democratic socialists?

MLK, Gandhi, Einstein, Helen Keller, Dorothy Day, Camus, Orwell, Bertrand Russell, Andrei Sakharov and Michael Harrington, to name just a few.

Oooo, scary!!

WV,

Side-note on earlier comments. Please don’t take my sometimes annoying persistence on these issues as anything personal. It’s not. It’s me being incredibly frustrated by external events. Not with you. Not with anyone here. No way, no how.

Knowing I have zero control over them just makes it all the worse for wear. This is just me trying to get myself out of dark places via various means at hand. One of them is the Internet and forums like this.