Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

For every controversy, Meta’s default defence seems to be the same: “It was a technical glitch.” But a former Meta executive turned whistle-blower has punctured that narrative. Algorithms don’t create themselves. They are designed by people, trained on human choices, and operate within rules set by the company. Meta... show more

Amit Malviya

855,886 subscribers

28,660 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & Technologie Nachrichten & Politik

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

#WATCH | Mumbai, Maharashtra: On Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's apology over the temporary removal of PM Modi's video, Cyber Expert Prashant Mali says, "If a social media platform has removed the Prime Minister of India's official video without valid justification, then this is not merely about one individual. It raises serious questions about accountability towards India's democratic institutions. However, I feel the government should deal with this issue strictly within the framework of law and not emotion. If Meta has violated Indian laws, the IT Act, the Intermediary Rules, or any other applicable legal provisions, the government is well within its rights to seek an explanation and initiate legal proceedings if warranted, because that is required. At the same time, Meta also must demonstrate transparency by publicly explaining why the video was taken down and whether this was the result of a human or technical error. An apology and a clear commitment to prevent such incidents in the future would be the responsible course of action. I feel India is one of Meta's largest markets, and every global platform, be it a technology platform or a social media platform, must respect India's laws, democratic institutions, and digital sovereignty. That's very important. Being a sovereign country and respecting digital sovereignty have become two things that Meta is clearly seen not doing here. And I think, henceforth, Meta will respect India's digital sovereignty." (Source: Self-Made)

#WATCH | Mumbai, Maharashtra: On Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's apology over the temporary removal of PM Modi's video, Cyber Expert Prashant Mali says, "If a social media platform has removed the Prime Minister of India's official video without valid justification, then this is not merely about one individual. It raises serious questions about accountability towards India's democratic institutions. However, I feel the government should deal with this issue strictly within the framework of law and not emotion. If Meta has violated Indian laws, the IT Act, the Intermediary Rules, or any other applicable legal provisions, the government is well within its rights to seek an explanation and initiate legal proceedings if warranted, because that is required. At the same time, Meta also must demonstrate transparency by publicly explaining why the video was taken down and whether this was the result of a human or technical error. An apology and a clear commitment to prevent such incidents in the future would be the responsible course of action. I feel India is one of Meta's largest markets, and every global platform, be it a technology platform or a social media platform, must respect India's laws, democratic institutions, and digital sovereignty. That's very important. Being a sovereign country and respecting digital sovereignty have become two things that Meta is clearly seen not doing here. And I think, henceforth, Meta will respect India's digital sovereignty." (Source: Self-Made)

ANI

114,432 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

ELON MUSK EXPLAINS WHY 𝕏 IS BECOMING THE ULTIMATE PLATFORM FOR TRUTH Something is broken in modern journalism Legacy media was built for a world where information had to be centralized, filtered by editors, printed on paper, and distributed to the public That world no longer exists Today, anyone can access information instantly. We no longer need a handful of editors deciding what matters and what does not This is why 𝕏 represents the future It enables citizen journalism, news by the people, for the people What makes this moment transformative is simple The public now decides the narrative The public decides what matters Legacy media concentrates power at the top Citizen journalism distributes it to everyone That shift is fundamental And it is why Elon encourages people to write, share, and report directly on 𝕏 Journalism is not dead It is being rebuilt by the public

ELON MUSK EXPLAINS WHY 𝕏 IS BECOMING THE ULTIMATE PLATFORM FOR TRUTH Something is broken in modern journalism Legacy media was built for a world where information had to be centralized, filtered by editors, printed on paper, and distributed to the public That world no longer exists Today, anyone can access information instantly. We no longer need a handful of editors deciding what matters and what does not This is why 𝕏 represents the future It enables citizen journalism, news by the people, for the people What makes this moment transformative is simple The public now decides the narrative The public decides what matters Legacy media concentrates power at the top Citizen journalism distributes it to everyone That shift is fundamental And it is why Elon encourages people to write, share, and report directly on 𝕏 Journalism is not dead It is being rebuilt by the public

X Freeze

524,115 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

#WATCH | Delhi: On Meta's explanation over PM Modi's post on strict action over paper leaks removal, S. Krishnan, Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology says, "...The authorised content from the authorised handle of the PM being removed is an extremely disturbing occurance, it should have never happened. I am happy that Meta realised that they had to apologise for this mistake. Their unconditional apology for the mistake is a good step. But having said that I think the explanation that it was a technical ground and that there was a technical glitch does not appear to be an acceptable explanation in its entirety. We have sought more details, we will have a very detailed technical meeting as to how these things happen. We will seek assurances that the handles of prominent personalities in India should be ringfenced and once it's a verified account, it should be ensured that content that is posted there is not removed on such flimsy grounds or on such mistakes which happen. I think it is very unfortunate that this happened and we will follow this up to see that there are systemic corrections to ensure that such incidents do not recur."

#WATCH | Delhi: On Meta's explanation over PM Modi's post on strict action over paper leaks removal, S. Krishnan, Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology says, "...The authorised content from the authorised handle of the PM being removed is an extremely disturbing occurance, it should have never happened. I am happy that Meta realised that they had to apologise for this mistake. Their unconditional apology for the mistake is a good step. But having said that I think the explanation that it was a technical ground and that there was a technical glitch does not appear to be an acceptable explanation in its entirety. We have sought more details, we will have a very detailed technical meeting as to how these things happen. We will seek assurances that the handles of prominent personalities in India should be ringfenced and once it's a verified account, it should be ensured that content that is posted there is not removed on such flimsy grounds or on such mistakes which happen. I think it is very unfortunate that this happened and we will follow this up to see that there are systemic corrections to ensure that such incidents do not recur."

ANI

23,936 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Did Meta Make A Big Mistake By Removing PM Modi's Video?? - Amit Dubey Meta did make a major error by temporarily removing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Facebook video, a move that sparked intense governmental backlash and severe legal warnings in India. In an interview on the channel of popular digital creator RJRaunac, cyber security expert Amit Dubey highlighted how this incident exposed deep flaws in how big tech operates. PM Modi posted a video on July 23 addressing Gen Z students about the NEET paper leak controversy. The video was suddenly blocked and remained unavailable on Facebook for over five hours. Meta initially cited legal obligations, but later blamed an automated AI filter glitch for the accidental takedown. The Indian government and a parliamentary IT panel, led by MP Nishikant Dubey, heavily grilled Meta's global team. They rejected the "technical glitch" excuse, raising questions about potential algorithmic bias and systemic flaws. Loss of Safe Harbour Protection: The Parliamentary Committee warned Meta that it could lose its "safe harbour" immunity under Section 79 of the IT Act if accountability isn't met. This protection shields Meta from legal liability for user-generated content; losing it would expose the company to massive legal vulnerabilities. Demand for Zuckerberg's Apology: While Meta's Global Affairs chief Joel Kaplan conveyed an official apology to IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, the parliamentary panel has heavily pushed for a personal, written apology from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The incident has significantly damaged Meta’s standing in India its largest global user market reigniting intense national debates around digital sovereignty and the lack of human transparency in big-tech content moderation. Credit : TRP/RJ Raunac.

Did Meta Make A Big Mistake By Removing PM Modi's Video?? - Amit Dubey Meta did make a major error by temporarily removing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Facebook video, a move that sparked intense governmental backlash and severe legal warnings in India. In an interview on the channel of popular digital creator RJRaunac, cyber security expert Amit Dubey highlighted how this incident exposed deep flaws in how big tech operates. PM Modi posted a video on July 23 addressing Gen Z students about the NEET paper leak controversy. The video was suddenly blocked and remained unavailable on Facebook for over five hours. Meta initially cited legal obligations, but later blamed an automated AI filter glitch for the accidental takedown. The Indian government and a parliamentary IT panel, led by MP Nishikant Dubey, heavily grilled Meta's global team. They rejected the "technical glitch" excuse, raising questions about potential algorithmic bias and systemic flaws. Loss of Safe Harbour Protection: The Parliamentary Committee warned Meta that it could lose its "safe harbour" immunity under Section 79 of the IT Act if accountability isn't met. This protection shields Meta from legal liability for user-generated content; losing it would expose the company to massive legal vulnerabilities. Demand for Zuckerberg's Apology: While Meta's Global Affairs chief Joel Kaplan conveyed an official apology to IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, the parliamentary panel has heavily pushed for a personal, written apology from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The incident has significantly damaged Meta’s standing in India its largest global user market reigniting intense national debates around digital sovereignty and the lack of human transparency in big-tech content moderation. Credit : TRP/RJ Raunac.

Augadh

16,468 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Why Meta India Must Pay. Facebook and Instagram Should Face a Billion Dollar Fine For Restricting Modi's Speech. 1/ Meta's global affairs chief Joel Kaplan apologised to India's IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw. Mark Zuckerberg separately apologised over CSAM, deepfakes and "operational failures." Meta executives admitted money was paid to boost a certain type of content on their platforms. 2/ The backdrop: PM Narendra Modi's July 23 video addressing student protesters over the NEET-UG paper-leak scandal was briefly restricted on Facebook. Meta called it an "error" and restored it. But that error surfaced in the middle of a 36-day youth movement that had already forced a Cabinet minister to resign. 3/ Timing is the whole story. A platform doesn't get to plead "operational glitch" and "paid content promotion" in the same meeting and expect both to be read as unrelated coincidences. Either the system is out of control, or someone had their thumb on the scale. Neither answer is reassuring. 4/ This isn't Meta's first apology tour in India. Elections, protests, political content — the pattern keeps repeating: something goes wrong at a politically sensitive moment, a minister objects, an executive says sorry, and the underlying system is never actually opened up for inspection. 5/ An apology is not accountability. If Meta wants to be believed, it doesn't get to describe the outcome — it has to show the mechanism. What content was boosted, and to whom? What decided the boost — algorithmic, paid or manual? The scale and reach of that promotion. Who signed off on it? Nothing less is a real answer. 6/ India's Parliamentary IT committee is already floating the nuclear option: strip Meta of intermediary "safe harbour" status under Section 79, and treat it as a publisher — legally responsible for what it amplifies, not just what it hosts. That's the leverage that actually forces disclosure, not another apology in a closed-door meeting. 7/ The ask is simple: transparency first, trust second. No "trust our internal review." No quiet apology after a minister already caught it. If a platform can move a national protest narrative, it owes the country receipts — not regret. 8/ A $1 billion fine should drill the message home - information warfare against India comes with consequences.

Why Meta India Must Pay. Facebook and Instagram Should Face a Billion Dollar Fine For Restricting Modi's Speech. 1/ Meta's global affairs chief Joel Kaplan apologised to India's IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw. Mark Zuckerberg separately apologised over CSAM, deepfakes and "operational failures." Meta executives admitted money was paid to boost a certain type of content on their platforms. 2/ The backdrop: PM Narendra Modi's July 23 video addressing student protesters over the NEET-UG paper-leak scandal was briefly restricted on Facebook. Meta called it an "error" and restored it. But that error surfaced in the middle of a 36-day youth movement that had already forced a Cabinet minister to resign. 3/ Timing is the whole story. A platform doesn't get to plead "operational glitch" and "paid content promotion" in the same meeting and expect both to be read as unrelated coincidences. Either the system is out of control, or someone had their thumb on the scale. Neither answer is reassuring. 4/ This isn't Meta's first apology tour in India. Elections, protests, political content — the pattern keeps repeating: something goes wrong at a politically sensitive moment, a minister objects, an executive says sorry, and the underlying system is never actually opened up for inspection. 5/ An apology is not accountability. If Meta wants to be believed, it doesn't get to describe the outcome — it has to show the mechanism. What content was boosted, and to whom? What decided the boost — algorithmic, paid or manual? The scale and reach of that promotion. Who signed off on it? Nothing less is a real answer. 6/ India's Parliamentary IT committee is already floating the nuclear option: strip Meta of intermediary "safe harbour" status under Section 79, and treat it as a publisher — legally responsible for what it amplifies, not just what it hosts. That's the leverage that actually forces disclosure, not another apology in a closed-door meeting. 7/ The ask is simple: transparency first, trust second. No "trust our internal review." No quiet apology after a minister already caught it. If a platform can move a national protest narrative, it owes the country receipts — not regret. 8/ A $1 billion fine should drill the message home - information warfare against India comes with consequences.

Rakesh Krishnan Simha

64,127 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

ATTENTION! SUBJ: We either live in a Constitutional Republic or not! ACCOUNTABILITY, a cornerstone of a free and fair society, ensures that power is exercised responsibly by individuals, corporations, or government officials. It is closely linked to transparency, as it fosters trust and reinforces the principle that no one is above the law. When violations of public trust are dismissed as simple errors and transparency is resisted at every turn, it raises a fundamental question: Is the rule of law only meant for some and not others? Donald J. Trump Attorney General Pamela Bondi DNI Tulsi Gabbard

ATTENTION! SUBJ: We either live in a Constitutional Republic or not! ACCOUNTABILITY, a cornerstone of a free and fair society, ensures that power is exercised responsibly by individuals, corporations, or government officials. It is closely linked to transparency, as it fosters trust and reinforces the principle that no one is above the law. When violations of public trust are dismissed as simple errors and transparency is resisted at every turn, it raises a fundamental question: Is the rule of law only meant for some and not others? Donald J. Trump Attorney General Pamela Bondi DNI Tulsi Gabbard

General Mike Flynn

149,591 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Current violence in Kashmir did not erupt in isolation. Credible inputs indicate that elements backed by ISI exploited the situation to trigger unrest. What began as peaceful gatherings was deliberately hijacked by anti-national elements (ANEs) who pushed Shia and Sunni youth toward coordinated stone pelting on security forces. The intent was clear: provoke a reaction, create confrontation, capture selective visuals, and malign the image of forces maintaining law and order. Peaceful voices were sidelined. The narrative was engineered. Kashmir has seen this pattern before. When peaceful sentiment is manipulated for strategic optics, it is the common people who suffer the consequences. Stability is not threatened by peaceful protest. It is threatened when hidden hands turn it into orchestrated violence. What is equally concerning is the role of certain political actors. Leaders like Aga Ruhullah and Junaid Mattoo amplified provocative content on social media. Instead of calming tempers, they chose to inflame passions. Such conduct raises serious questions about whose interests they truly represent. History has shown that in every fort there emerges a “Mir Jafar”. The tragedy is that ordinary people end up paying the price for the ambitions and agendas of a few.

Current violence in Kashmir did not erupt in isolation. Credible inputs indicate that elements backed by ISI exploited the situation to trigger unrest. What began as peaceful gatherings was deliberately hijacked by anti-national elements (ANEs) who pushed Shia and Sunni youth toward coordinated stone pelting on security forces. The intent was clear: provoke a reaction, create confrontation, capture selective visuals, and malign the image of forces maintaining law and order. Peaceful voices were sidelined. The narrative was engineered. Kashmir has seen this pattern before. When peaceful sentiment is manipulated for strategic optics, it is the common people who suffer the consequences. Stability is not threatened by peaceful protest. It is threatened when hidden hands turn it into orchestrated violence. What is equally concerning is the role of certain political actors. Leaders like Aga Ruhullah and Junaid Mattoo amplified provocative content on social media. Instead of calming tempers, they chose to inflame passions. Such conduct raises serious questions about whose interests they truly represent. History has shown that in every fort there emerges a “Mir Jafar”. The tragedy is that ordinary people end up paying the price for the ambitions and agendas of a few.

Mike Lima

14,595 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

IT'S AMAZING WHAT WE ALL REMEMBER WHEN COVID ARRIVED ON OUR SHORES. What do you remember? It really was not all about the vaccine, was it? We recall like it was yesterday when what happens when a collective group of people allow another collective group of people goes all out to convince them that compassion is optional and conformity is a virtue. Who and what will be remembered? Will it be the people who repeated the approved talking points. Will it be the people who demanded silence - the people who justified coercion - or those who forgot the people they were condemning were neighbors and friends and family members? This cannot be erased by simply saying, "We didn't know."

IT'S AMAZING WHAT WE ALL REMEMBER WHEN COVID ARRIVED ON OUR SHORES. What do you remember? It really was not all about the vaccine, was it? We recall like it was yesterday when what happens when a collective group of people allow another collective group of people goes all out to convince them that compassion is optional and conformity is a virtue. Who and what will be remembered? Will it be the people who repeated the approved talking points. Will it be the people who demanded silence - the people who justified coercion - or those who forgot the people they were condemning were neighbors and friends and family members? This cannot be erased by simply saying, "We didn't know."

BelannF

17,791 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

AI ownership is becoming one of the most important questions of this decade. Most systems today are built behind closed doors, trained by millions of people, and ultimately owned by a very small group at the top. That structure shapes who benefits, who decides, and who gets left out. Action Model explores a different approach, one where contribution isn't invisible, participation is collective, and intelligence is owned by the people. Not as a product to just consume, but as an ecosystem people can help shape. Because the future of AI won't just be defined by what it can do, but by who it belongs to.

AI ownership is becoming one of the most important questions of this decade. Most systems today are built behind closed doors, trained by millions of people, and ultimately owned by a very small group at the top. That structure shapes who benefits, who decides, and who gets left out. Action Model explores a different approach, one where contribution isn't invisible, participation is collective, and intelligence is owned by the people. Not as a product to just consume, but as an ecosystem people can help shape. Because the future of AI won't just be defined by what it can do, but by who it belongs to.

Action Model

11,306 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🚨 GLOBAL SPEECH CONTROL AGENDA The United Nations is now openly calling for “coordinated global action” to police what it labels disinformation and hate speech online. Let that sink in. An unelected international body — with no democratic mandate over sovereign citizens — is proposing frameworks to regulate what billions of people are allowed to say, share, and believe on digital platforms. This is not about protecting truth. It is about controlling narrative. History shows that the institutions most eager to define “misinformation” are often the same ones that were wrong — or dishonest — about: • Wars • Public health policies • Economic decisions • Political legitimacy The danger is not false information alone. The danger is centralised authority deciding what counts as truth. Once speech is governed at a global level, dissent itself becomes a violation. The real question is no longer whether misinformation exists. The real question is: Who gets to decide what is true — and who gets silenced?

🚨 GLOBAL SPEECH CONTROL AGENDA The United Nations is now openly calling for “coordinated global action” to police what it labels disinformation and hate speech online. Let that sink in. An unelected international body — with no democratic mandate over sovereign citizens — is proposing frameworks to regulate what billions of people are allowed to say, share, and believe on digital platforms. This is not about protecting truth. It is about controlling narrative. History shows that the institutions most eager to define “misinformation” are often the same ones that were wrong — or dishonest — about: • Wars • Public health policies • Economic decisions • Political legitimacy The danger is not false information alone. The danger is centralised authority deciding what counts as truth. Once speech is governed at a global level, dissent itself becomes a violation. The real question is no longer whether misinformation exists. The real question is: Who gets to decide what is true — and who gets silenced?

Jim Ferguson

245,218 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

When breeze blow, VDM yansh open 👐🏾 This guy clearly state that we are worst than the politicians and that’s the reason why he rather support and stand on the mandate of Tinubu than to call for a revolution, because the people according to him doesn’t have the right mindset to govern themselves. This is just shifting blame away from those who actually hold power to blame the people who operate within systems created by the people in power. when those systems are corrupt or broken, society reflects it. That’s not proof that the people are worse; it’s proof that leadership has failed. Saying people can’t do better is also false. History shows that when citizens demand accountability, organize, and push for reform, systems improve. Dismissing them outright is not insight but defeatist thinking. VeryDarkMan is now a tool of excuse for the politicians for their inaction. He avoids responsibility and offers zero solution to the problems it claims to criticize.

When breeze blow, VDM yansh open 👐🏾 This guy clearly state that we are worst than the politicians and that’s the reason why he rather support and stand on the mandate of Tinubu than to call for a revolution, because the people according to him doesn’t have the right mindset to govern themselves. This is just shifting blame away from those who actually hold power to blame the people who operate within systems created by the people in power. when those systems are corrupt or broken, society reflects it. That’s not proof that the people are worse; it’s proof that leadership has failed. Saying people can’t do better is also false. History shows that when citizens demand accountability, organize, and push for reform, systems improve. Dismissing them outright is not insight but defeatist thinking. VeryDarkMan is now a tool of excuse for the politicians for their inaction. He avoids responsibility and offers zero solution to the problems it claims to criticize.

Death Note 📝

14,409 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

BREAKING: Trump is asked why he’s trying to implement price controls in America — price controls that Republicans have claimed to be “communism” when Democrats tried things like this. “It’s not price controls. What was price controls is what was before. They set a price and said ‘this is what we are going to pay.'" FACT CHECK: This is a form of price controls by the Executive Branch. Republicans are hypocrites. We all want drug prices lower, but call it what it is.

BREAKING: Trump is asked why he’s trying to implement price controls in America — price controls that Republicans have claimed to be “communism” when Democrats tried things like this. “It’s not price controls. What was price controls is what was before. They set a price and said ‘this is what we are going to pay.'" FACT CHECK: This is a form of price controls by the Executive Branch. Republicans are hypocrites. We all want drug prices lower, but call it what it is.

Ed Krassenstein

938,439 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Peter Thiel: “disruption” is a horrible buzzword “I don’t think that your goal in starting a company should be to disrupt or destroy a big company. Your goal is to create a successful company. ” He continues: “And this is why I really dislike ‘disruption’ as a buzzword. It is one of the most horrible, overused buzzwords. A disruptive person is someone who looks for trouble and finds it… Napster was a very disruptive company that set out to destroy the music industry… and a year later it was shut down by the government… I think one really shouldn’t take one’s bearings from destroying existing companies.” He argues that he and the PayPal team didn’t really aim to disrupt: “PayPal did create a new payment solution. On some level it constrained what the card companies like Visa, Mastercard, and Amex could do. On some level it extended what they could do. So they didn’t like us that much, but it wasn’t that hostile. It was not a zero-sum disruption dynamic.” He concludes: “I do think that in a lot of these areas, there’s room for growth and your success doesn’t require large existing companies to fail.”

Peter Thiel: “disruption” is a horrible buzzword “I don’t think that your goal in starting a company should be to disrupt or destroy a big company. Your goal is to create a successful company. ” He continues: “And this is why I really dislike ‘disruption’ as a buzzword. It is one of the most horrible, overused buzzwords. A disruptive person is someone who looks for trouble and finds it… Napster was a very disruptive company that set out to destroy the music industry… and a year later it was shut down by the government… I think one really shouldn’t take one’s bearings from destroying existing companies.” He argues that he and the PayPal team didn’t really aim to disrupt: “PayPal did create a new payment solution. On some level it constrained what the card companies like Visa, Mastercard, and Amex could do. On some level it extended what they could do. So they didn’t like us that much, but it wasn’t that hostile. It was not a zero-sum disruption dynamic.” He concludes: “I do think that in a lot of these areas, there’s room for growth and your success doesn’t require large existing companies to fail.”

Startup Archive

79,645 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

🚨 NASA IS LIGHTING FIRES ON THE MOON — WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY HIDING UP THERE? This is becoming increasingly strange. While NASA and private companies push forward with new lunar missions, many are asking a serious question: Why are they conducting what appear to be fire or energy experiments on the moon? Some see it as nothing more than a massive money grab. Others like David Icke believe something far deeper is going on. That the moon may not be natural at all. That it was brought here, could be hollow, and is being used as a massive sensor or control system for humanity. The moon has long been surrounded by anomalies that defy conventional explanation. The official narrative has more holes than it has answers. And many of the public faces of these missions look and feel more like actors than explorers. Why the hell is NASA lighting fires on the moon, and what are they really using it for?

🚨 NASA IS LIGHTING FIRES ON THE MOON — WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY HIDING UP THERE? This is becoming increasingly strange. While NASA and private companies push forward with new lunar missions, many are asking a serious question: Why are they conducting what appear to be fire or energy experiments on the moon? Some see it as nothing more than a massive money grab. Others like David Icke believe something far deeper is going on. That the moon may not be natural at all. That it was brought here, could be hollow, and is being used as a massive sensor or control system for humanity. The moon has long been surrounded by anomalies that defy conventional explanation. The official narrative has more holes than it has answers. And many of the public faces of these missions look and feel more like actors than explorers. Why the hell is NASA lighting fires on the moon, and what are they really using it for?

HustleBitch

21,294 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Parliament cannot script a judgement of a court. Parliament can only legislate and hold institutions, including Judiciary and Executive, accountable. Judgement writing, adjudication, is the sole prerogative of Judiciary, as much as legislation is that of the Parliament. But frequently we are seeing that the executive governance is by judicial orders. When the government is elected by people, it is accountable to Parliament. The government is accountable to the people at election. There is a principle of accountability in operation. In Parliament, you can ask questions, critical questions, because the governance is by the Executive. But if this executive governance is by Judiciary, how do you ask questions? Whom do you hold accountable in elections? Time has come for our three institutions, Legislature, Judiciary, and Executive, to blossom. And they blossom best when they operate in their own area. Any incursion by one in the domain of the other poses a challenge, which is not good. It can upset the balance. The relationship between these three must be wholesome, soothing, one of deep understanding and coordination, not show of authority. #RajyaSabha

Parliament cannot script a judgement of a court. Parliament can only legislate and hold institutions, including Judiciary and Executive, accountable. Judgement writing, adjudication, is the sole prerogative of Judiciary, as much as legislation is that of the Parliament. But frequently we are seeing that the executive governance is by judicial orders. When the government is elected by people, it is accountable to Parliament. The government is accountable to the people at election. There is a principle of accountability in operation. In Parliament, you can ask questions, critical questions, because the governance is by the Executive. But if this executive governance is by Judiciary, how do you ask questions? Whom do you hold accountable in elections? Time has come for our three institutions, Legislature, Judiciary, and Executive, to blossom. And they blossom best when they operate in their own area. Any incursion by one in the domain of the other poses a challenge, which is not good. It can upset the balance. The relationship between these three must be wholesome, soothing, one of deep understanding and coordination, not show of authority. #RajyaSabha

Vice-President of India

435,054 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

“When the Elephants fight, the grass suffers” - African proverb In this case the grass was a cabinet minister - Dharmendra Pradhan Meta and Google are locked in a battle to spread their business in India - their largest subscription base globally. Their algorithms are setting rules for politics. The Parliament is now discussing camera angles, the PM is making midnight reels and political handles are demanding a ban on Instagram and Meta The Cabinet Minister was a roadkill. The Government is trying regulation by innuendo and force as it has outsourced governance to APPs. Have been warning about this forever:

“When the Elephants fight, the grass suffers” - African proverb In this case the grass was a cabinet minister - Dharmendra Pradhan Meta and Google are locked in a battle to spread their business in India - their largest subscription base globally. Their algorithms are setting rules for politics. The Parliament is now discussing camera angles, the PM is making midnight reels and political handles are demanding a ban on Instagram and Meta The Cabinet Minister was a roadkill. The Government is trying regulation by innuendo and force as it has outsourced governance to APPs. Have been warning about this forever:

Pankaj Pachauri

24,893 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Ben Thompson argues Meta's ad business is good for society and is frustrated Mark Zuckerberg doesn't defend it "I think a big problem Meta has is they don't tell this story. It's weird, but Mark Zuckerberg has the same problem Sam Altman does. He doesn't love ads." "They have the best ad business in the world. They have an ad business that I think is a societal positive." "Like you and I have set up these little content businesses that make great money, but content is kind of, you get a ride on social media, right? I grew up on Twitter, people sharing my links. It was amazing." "If you're selling some product, the beauty of the internet is there is a niche out there that wants that product. The question is how do you find the niche?" "Facebook advertising. That's what it does. It helps products find the people who didn't even know they wanted that product, but when they get it, they're so happy they got it." "And that is a huge societal positive." "You have new business from a new entrepreneur making a new product. You have customers who are happy they got something that they didn't know they would get otherwise." "Those customers, by the way, got lots of free entertainment, and they didn't have to pay for it along the way." "And Meta made a bunch of money for themselves and their shareholders, which is basically everyone in the world." "This is why advertising is great. And Meta's advertising in particular is awesome. And I get frustrated that Meta doesn't talk about that." "Mark Zuckerberg has never really talked about the societal benefits of advertising except in passing."

Ben Thompson argues Meta's ad business is good for society and is frustrated Mark Zuckerberg doesn't defend it "I think a big problem Meta has is they don't tell this story. It's weird, but Mark Zuckerberg has the same problem Sam Altman does. He doesn't love ads." "They have the best ad business in the world. They have an ad business that I think is a societal positive." "Like you and I have set up these little content businesses that make great money, but content is kind of, you get a ride on social media, right? I grew up on Twitter, people sharing my links. It was amazing." "If you're selling some product, the beauty of the internet is there is a niche out there that wants that product. The question is how do you find the niche?" "Facebook advertising. That's what it does. It helps products find the people who didn't even know they wanted that product, but when they get it, they're so happy they got it." "And that is a huge societal positive." "You have new business from a new entrepreneur making a new product. You have customers who are happy they got something that they didn't know they would get otherwise." "Those customers, by the way, got lots of free entertainment, and they didn't have to pay for it along the way." "And Meta made a bunch of money for themselves and their shareholders, which is basically everyone in the world." "This is why advertising is great. And Meta's advertising in particular is awesome. And I get frustrated that Meta doesn't talk about that." "Mark Zuckerberg has never really talked about the societal benefits of advertising except in passing."

Fireside Alpha

51,270 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat