Zuckerberg & The Professor

Regular readers may go, "Ohhhhhh noooo, he's going back to Gilligan's Island," one of my all time favorite television shows, which began in the mid 1960s, but the episodes of which aired for decades after the show stopped production in 1967. There were many good lessons given during the show's original 3 television seasons and nearly 100 episodes. In one episode, Gilligan discovers some seeds on a bush in the jungle. He finds out that when he eats the seeds, he can read the minds of the other castaways. Naturally, the others all want seeds too, and Gilligan brings back seeds for all. At first the castaways are all thrilled and amused with their newly found power, but then they begin to argue, as they now know the negative thoughts they also have toward each other. Gilligan talks with the Professor, the island's intellectual, about the ongoing strife, and the Professor tells Gilligan he thought the mind reading ability would help to promote world peace, an idea Gilligan "thinks," but doesn't say, is absurd. The Professor reads Gilligan's mind and he is deeply offended over Gilligan's disparaging thought, so he stomps off (that kind of shoots 'world peace' in the ass!). As the "former" friends all argue, the always bungling, but well meaning Gilligan decides to go into the jungle and set fire to the bush. The seeds are destroyed and the crisis is over. Now...

In more recent times, enter Mark Zuckerberg and his band of... ah, his band of... ah, techsperts. "If only we could connect the entire world on an online website, where everybody could say what they wanted; sort of the ultimate 'free speech' forum. A site where the only things needed would be an Internet connection and a device to reach the Internet. Wow! This would be as great as the castaways of Gilligan's Island being able to read minds. It would unite the world, work to fight poverty, support freedom, and"  ...,well, you get the drift. People the world over could communicate with one another easily. This was just too good to be true. And it was too good to be true; at least, to some extent. The world is a complex place, full of all kinds of people with lots of personalities, mood swings and motivations. Believe it or not, there are actually BAD people in the world, and Zuckerberg's Facebook, and other "social media" sites, gave these "bad people" a way into the lives of many unsuspecting users. Fake stories and conspiracy theories were posted on ALL of these websites, although Facebook became the "face" (no pun intended) of this whole part of the modern tech world. I almost wrote "phenomenon," but this has NOT been a phenomenon, but rather a situation just waiting to happen and to gain a foothold. People and organizations who had been voiceless in their lives were given a chance to join the world, and to do so "essentially" anonymously, some with venom dripping from their fangs as they "got even" with the world for the state of their own lives and with "enemies," real or perceived. Egomaniacs saw a chance to tout themselves.   

Understand, the technology CAN'T be un-invented, but the idea that all of this technology shouldn't be regulated is sheer nonsense, although the particulars as to how to regulate it are difficult to determine; after all, the Internet is WORLDWIDE. This is no longer some television or radio stations in a country being regulated by their own people in some manner. There is no bush with seeds in the jungle to set afire to solve the problem. Remember too, however, that the social media websites are not governed by constitutional "free speech," as many people do not understand that term. The "free speech" part of the Constitution applies to government suppression of free speech, and of course, that protection ends at both the boundaries of the U.S. and at the boundaries of private individuals and of private companies These websites are privately owned companies and they can limit, restrict or stop certain people or groups from posting anything and everything, if they so choose. Remember too, governments have chosen to get involved on social media sites, so this is not just some individuals or political groups that are leading "the bad guys and girls." With tremendous amounts of funding, these governments can aggressively operate under the cover of seemingly independent groups, but they can push their own agendas, or help allies to push their agendas for them, or they can launch cyber attacks on others or hack into websites, which has the potential to shutdown electric power in large parts of some countries. Remember... I mentioned egomaniacs...

Zuckerberg and Company had a nice idea, and there's no question that people used the services provided, although we also know that personal privacy was damaged by social media shenanigans and that Facebook and other sites opened up new worlds for criminals, including criminal regimes in the world. So Mark Zuckerberg and the Professor have some idealism in common, but Zuckerberg also has something in common with Dr. Frankenstein. How far that "something" goes is the question.    
WORD HISTORY:
Burden-This word, related to the verb "bear" (meaning, "to carry, to give birth"), an original English word from its Germanic roots, which goes back to Indo European "bher," which meant, "to bear a burden, to carry." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "burthin(ja)," meaning, "something carried, a thing borne." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "byrðen" (=byrthen") and meaning, "burden, weight, load;" also, "a fee, a charge" (also "byrd" was another form, meaning "burden"). This then became "burthen," before the modern form. Forms in the other Germanic languages: German "Bürde" (burden, load), Low German Saxon had "Börden" (weight, load, burden), but now has the shorter, "Böör," Frisian had "berde," but no longer uses a form of the word, Dutch had "borde," but apparently no longer uses it, Icelandic has "byrði" (burden), Danish and Norwegian "byrde" (burden), Swedish "börda" (burden). 

The Deal With the Ruthless, Greedy Internet Devils (Plural)

Likely most in the public didn't exactly understand the deal they were being asked to accept for the "right" to have free access to Facebook, Google and others. The almost voluminous agreements flashed onto our screens are all lengthy and complicated for a reason... SO YOU WON'T ACTUALLY READ THEM! Yes, we SHOULD read them, but few really do (I plead guilty), and the issuing companies know that. The info the technology companies have compiled on us, by various reports, is STAGGERING! We sold our souls and our very personas and the info they have on us will not stay contained; after all, this is about MONEY; therefore, NOTHING is off the table, because they will do ANYTHING for MONEY. Then there are the various Internet service providers to whom we PAY money for their service, and they track EVERY click we make on the Web. They know more about us than we can remember about ourselves! If you really believe these moneygrubbing exploiters won't use any of your medical or banking info, or info on your children or grandchildren, that they have pilfered or pillaged, you're being terribly naive. They want MONEY! Gazillions! Not a quarter of a gazillion, not a half a gazillion, not one gazillion, GAZILLIONS!

Last year, congressional Republicans and Trump repealed Obama rules on your browsing history that were set to go into effect to give individuals the right to approve the collection and sale of their private browsing history. The passage of the repeal by Congress and the signing of the measure by Donald Trump allows the internet service providers (separate from entities like Google and Facebook) to sell your collected browsing history without your consent. Let's start the bidding ... who will give us a bundle for a BUNDLE of info on these people? This is how the vote went in Congress:

Senate vote: 50 FOR, all Republicans, 48 AGAINST, all Democrats, 2 not voting, Republicans Johnny Isakson of Georgia and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

House vote: 215 FOR, all Republicans, 205 AGAINST (all voting Democrats and 15 Republicans*), 9 members not voting**, 5 vacancies***

* 15 Republicans against the measure: Brooks (MO), McClintock (CA), Coffman (CO), Yoder (KS), Graves (LA), Amash (MI), Zeldin (NY), Faso (NY), Stefanik (NY), Jones (NC), Davidson (OH), Sanford (SC), Duncan (TN), Herrara Beutler (WA), Reichert (WA)

** 9 members not voting: Sean Duffy (R-WI), James French Hill (R-AR), Tom Marino (R-PA), Robert Pittenger (R-NC), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Bobby Rush (D-IL), Michael Simpson (R-ID), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Paul Tonko (D-NY)

*** One vacancy in each of these states: Montana, South Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, California

WORD HISTORY:
Plunder-In terms of this word's more distant history, this is a mystery word. It was borrowed by English from a sub-dialect of Bavarian German called "Hutterisch," spoken by "some" Protestant groups that grew out of the Reformation. The word "seems" to date to a noun form in the 1300s, at least, in German. In those times, the noun meant, "household goods," which also developed the extended meaning, "clothing." The noun spawned the verb "plundern," which later had an umlaut added to make, "plündern," meaning, "to carry off goods from a house." In those times, Low German and Dutch both had the similar verb "plunderen," while West Frisian had "plonderje," all with the same general meaning as the German verb, as well as, "to take over someone's possessions," with a growing emphasis on "taking possessions by force." German also developed "Plünderer," meaning, "one who plunders, one who takes possessions from others by force, a looter." Both the noun and the verb forms were borrowed by English during the first half of the 1600s. More or less as already noted, German has the verb "plündern," meaning, "to plunder, to loot," and the noun, "Plunder," which has now come to mean "junk, rubbish:" Dutch has the verb "plunderen," meaning, "to plunder, to ransack, to loot;" as well as the noun, "plundering," meaning, "the act of plundering, marauding."

Unilever Warns Facebook & Google

In recent days international corporate giant "Unilever," the maker of such products as "Hellman's Mayonnaise," "Dove Soap" and "Lipton Tea," and, from what I understand, the second largest advertiser in the world, has issued a stern warning to tech powerhouses "Google" and "Facebook," that Unilever will pull advertising from these companies, if the tech leaders don't deal with what Unilever termed platforms that are "little better than a swamp." Unilever wants the tech companies to help clean up "fake news," work to protect children and to stop groups from using social media that seek to heighten divisions in society and to "promote hate." DAMN! Donald Trump, watch out! I'm not sure why "Twitter" was left out of the companies, unless Unilever doesn't advertise there? Overall, I'm for it, but the problem is, the devil is in the details. We'll have to see how any of this develops, as, on the surface, some may feel this should be pretty easily done, but in the world of the Internet, where someone can be in Antarctica, but can make themselves appear to be in Des Moines, Iowa, and where the tech companies have had such tremendous leeway to make money, it's going to COST money to police these websites, and my guess is, LOTS of money. If other companies follow Unilever's lead, the tech companies will essentially be left with no choice, but to act.         

It's been my own opinion for quite some time, that Internet companies should not have been given such tremendous leeway to start with, and both major political parties have their fingerprints on this mess, sort of, "the Wild West of the Web." All of the tech companies, not just Facebook and Google, follow their users around the Internet and keep track of which sites users go to and what items and information they search for. Of course, they ONLY want their users to have a great experience, part of which seems to include the sale of  information they have on all of us to advertisers, who can then target us with ads tied to our website visits and searches. So, the tech companies make money from YOUR information, but you get "a great experience on the Web," whatever the hell that means.

WORD HISTORY:
Tame-This word goes back to Indo European "demeh," which had the notion, "to compel, to force;" thus also, "to break the wildness from, to get an animal accustomed to being around humans." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "tamaz," with the same meaning as the latter Indo European meaning;" thus, "to tame." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "tam," an adjective, meaning, "tame(d)." This then became "tame," initially with the ending "e" pronounced "eh/ah." Old English had the verb "temian," ("to tame, to make mild, to subdue"), but the modern verb "seems" to have come from the adjective. The other Germanic languages have (adjective forms): German "zahm," Low German Saxon "tamm," West Frisian "tam" (no longer used??), Dutch "tam," Danish "tam," Icelandic "tam" (this is the root, but apparently there are various endings; that is, inflections, on the root depending upon usage), Norwegian "tam," Swedish "tam."

How About We Follow The 'Net Execs Around?

If we followed the Internet execs around in their lives the way they follow us around on their sites or on the Web, we'd be arrested, but their money, and therefore, power, have made their following us around and gathering information on us, then selling or in other ways making deals with our info to make money, legal. Just because something is legal, doesn't necessarily mean it's right. Many correctly criticized the Gestapo and KGB for snooping on citizens for political purposes, now we let Internet companies snoop LEGALLY, and for MONEY! Just think of what they know about you. Let's face it, Yahoo got into trouble for reading their customers' emails, then passing along info to the government. This should scare the absolute hell out of you! The government knew private Internet providers had more info than they could collect! "Supposedly," Google and others turned down the government request for info on their customers. They'd rather keep it all to themselves, but hmm, I wonder if the Trump administration offered enough money ..... what would happen then? And how about when these companies get hacked? There goes your info, including silly, but still personal things, like, where you order pizza online, or more serious things, like, which political party or causes you like or donate to. Then of course, OOPS! You sent a sex message to someone and a picture of... ah, well, never mind.

Of course, the Internet execs state or imply, that they grant us free access to their sites in exchange for our info, not that many people even understand that. How many of us would "join" their sites if we had to pay for it? Zuckerberg just choked! (It's NOT just him, but he's prominent, and there are many others). He and others have a disconnect on the subject. They want money and they have justified their intrusion into people's personal lives, so they can get that money, which they have done, to the tune of billions and billions. That song is the tune they LOVE, not your privacy! 

I'll be doing another article on the overall subject of our personal privacy (ahh, what personal privacy?) soon, but it will have a separate title. 

WORD HISTORY:
Steal-The ultimate origin of this word is not firm, but it "seems" to come from Indo European "ster," which meant, "to steal," which "seems" to have carried the notion of, "to secretly take something from someone," as opposed to the ancestor of "rob," which had a much more aggressive notion of taking something, "to grab, to snatch." The Indo European form "may" have had a variant form, "stel," or Indo European's Old Germanic offspring changed the form, as Old Germanic had "stelanan," which meant, "to steal" ("seemingly" with that same "secret" part to its meaning). This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "stelan," with the same meaning. The "secret" part that seems to be part of the meaning is far better seen in the derived, "stealthy;" meaning, "to secretly or sneakily move along (originally, "sneakily move along with the intention of stealing"). "Stelan" then became "stelen," before the modern form. Forms in the other Germanic languages: German and Low German Saxon have "stehlen," Dutch has "stelen," Danish has "stjæle," Norwegian has "stjele," Icelandic has "stela," Swedish has "stäla." I could not find a form in modern West Frisian, but Frisian once had "stela." 

Just How Safe Are We? The Demise of the Web? Part One

UPDATE: This article was written before all of the recent information came out about Facebook, and before Facebook's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, made appearances before committees of the United States Congress in April 2018. The disclosures about Facebook, Google and others only confirms what many people already believed, or knew, to be true; that is, that many Internet tech/media companies have compiled extensive "dossiers" on many people on the planet, even with full knowledge of content from messages between users, and even calls from such service between users. Congress basically served up a lot of softball questions to Zuckerberg, who then hit them out of the park, much to the delight of the big money on Wall Street, where technology stocks soared with every pitch lobbed up to Zuckerberg. Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah was so typical of GOP "you're on your own" nonsense, when he asked Zuckerberg how Facebook exists. Zuckerberg softly answered, "Senator, we run ads." The idea that the public doesn't know that is more nonsense. The question isn't about any Internet company running ads, but rather the information they take from users and then sell or provide to advertisers, who then target those users with ads. Zuckerberg's comment to the effect that, "users want relevant ads," is more nonsense. Americans of all existing generations have grown up with ads. They are on television (not "targeted"), on radio (not targeted"), in newspapers and magazines (not "targeted"), on the sides of building (not "targeted"), on billboards along streets and highways (not "targeted"), and the fact that they are not "targeted" has not made companies stop using these forums to pitch their products or services. Senator Durbin of Illinois came closest to laying a glove on Zuckerberg and his, and other tech companies', nefarious, and thus far, successful, scheme to literally steal user information, with political complicity to make it legal, and then to monetize that info for their own benefit to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars. The political complicity has been bipartisan.

Of course, much of the concern about the Internet also has had to do with nations, especially Russia, using the Web to spread disinformation worldwide and to confuse people as to what is "true." Information is the very heart of democracy. Without reliable information, democracy will wither and die. Putin knows this very well. Putin is not an unrepentant communist, he's an unapologetic fascist,  who wants to control the Internet, and thus, the world. Defining "reliable information" is not always easily done, as many, if not most, issues, have varying points of view, but now, issues that once had great clarity with the overwhelming number of people are being made to sound as if there are hard choices involved; "good people on both sides," in the case of people protesting AGAINST Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, two evil groups, plain and simple.            

If government and private business can't stop spammers and scammers from sending gazillions of emails to us, or can't stop illegal phone calls by the gazillion, how safe are we from everything else, like terrorists, homegrown or from elsewhere? So what, there's no technology available to combat these things? Nope, or at least apparently not. If there is such technology, it's not being implemented, which tells you right off that big moneyed interests are stopping it. Some well meaning groups, like "Nomorobo," and others, have tried, but let me tell you, they're OVERWHELMED! They block a hundred million call numbers, there are far more than that already out there, and the thing is, no one seems to really know how many, as likely many more are added each day. The problem has become unstoppable, as caller numbers can be disguised to appear to come from another number, perhaps even YOUR OWN telephone number, and this displayed number hides the real number of the call. It's the same with emails, as another email address, perhaps even your own, hides the originating email address.

Some people, real or made up, "befriend" folks on social media hoping to get email addresses, or telephone numbers, to then send spam/scam emails, or to put your number onto computer lists to make that number a target for just this side of a gazillion calls. If they don't soon stop this crap, people will have no choice, but to move away from using the Internet and limit their phone use. I already keep my landline telephone ringer shut off, so effectively they have knocked me out of using a service I pay for. People with pay-as-you-go cellphone service or with limited calls, are being deprived of that service by the scammers, that's criminal. If they were ever turned over to the public, they would be literally torn to pieces, and I want to be there for it. If you are part of a legitimate charity, you'd better hope they get this phone crap (and email crap) under control, or your proceeds will shrink tremendously, although I'm sure they already have. See, you can't beat them, they can spoof your number or your email address, then people will never take your calls or open your emails, because they won't know if it's really legit.

 Here's the issue folks, the very systems used for telephone and internet service are the problem. The "bad guys" have figured out how to use these very systems to target the public, business and governments. Of course, it all likely comes down to that root of all evil ...MONEY! Hey, they aren't doing this for the fun of it. Everyone from terrorists to pornographers to thieves, etc, etc, are given access to use these systems. Let me tell you something, some folks are making a handsome buck off of all of this too; that is, granting access, then the crooks and scammers are making their own buck by having been given, and keeping, access. Of course, some may be doing both and really reaping a harvest of bucks.

Much more to come, in Part Two ....

WORD HISTORY:
Metal-The ultimate origins of "metal" is unknown, but it goes back to Greek "metalleuein," which meant, "to mine for something, to search in the earth for something." This then gave Greek "metallon," which meant "metal ore." This was borrowed by Latin as "metallum," meaning, "metal ore, metal." This gave Old French, a Latin-based language, "metal," which was then borrowed by English in the 1200s.