Technology is supposed to be better than humans at many things ...even to the extent of claiming someone is mistaken, which is easy to accept when dismissing the word of a senior citizen.  We older people have seen things, but one can laugh and say, "You are just seeing things!"

For many years now I have seen and heard many White House Press Secretaries report on the views of political opponents with 'catch phrases' ...and then the same 'catch phrase' is reported on most all the news stations, with not even a variation of the wording. 

I've seen and heard things reported in such a vague fashion, where it appears facts don't matter ...it is enough to report hearsay and guesses, something that was severely looked down upon years ago, and some people even lost their jobs because they didn't check their sources and things were reported inaccurately. But, it doesn't appear to be the case now ...as one person reports a possibility instead of a fact, and then most everyone else reports that same possibility.

It even works very effectively ...to keep the facts actually hidden (or pending investigation), and let the imagination go wild, often prompted with suggestions.

If a person does not agree with the presented agenda, then a person as myself can be considered a conspiracy theorist, or any number of discrediting things.

The very trustworthy technology has a very peculiar selective 'glitch' tendency ...which I wanted to look into because I don't like to be a part of misconceptions.  But, first of all I decided to look up this statistic, which of course is just an estimate, but the estimate said nearly 75% of us get our news from social media platforms, and another study said that between 35-40% of adults in the United States (of America) regularly access Facebook to get news.  And in looking into it, I have to admit, I was wondering why one particular post of mine on Facebook kept 'glitching', and only that one disappearing from my own posts ...it would be there, and then it wouldn't be.

Facebook’s news feed algorithm ...how does it work???

As I 'Googled' algorithm, an article said at it's basic level, it is a system which decides a post's position on a news feed based upon predictions about each user's preferences and tendencies.

So, if the algorithm is predicting my preferences and tendencies, then it could not make those evaluations unless it was collecting data on me, with them selectively choosing criteria by which they are making those predictive stereotypes. Am I then placed in a group with other people who are also placed in that group by criteria which is obviously of interest to both of us???

I know that if I am interested in antiques, then a person may want to say, "Oh, he's interested in antiques, maybe he would be interested in some of these old things we have."  But, all they would have to do is enter their items on an 'antiques' site, and I would go to 'antiques' sites to find what I want.  But, that is not what is happening ...to the contrary, there seems to be an effort to establish who I am ...but, beyond that is something that they assume I want, which I believe should be my choice.  I don't want to be placed in some sort of algorithm selected group that places me with people just like myself.  I am not so fragile that I want to be only surrounded and interacting with people who think the same as me.  But, I am also not insensitive or rude, so I don't believe other people have to be protected from my comments either.  The news and social media platforms don't seem to care if I'm protected from hearing things I think are absurd ...it seems they feel it is their obligation to educate me.

On the other hand, I don't want an algorithm precisely tailoring me as a user. And though I am a user ...I don't want to be used.  I don't want Facebook to become an echo chamber merely sheltering me with support for my present outlook ...but, I also don't want it to favor an outlook that shields itself from anybody who disagrees with a particular subject either.

Facebook may not directly control what any given user posts, but it sculpts the information landscape by choosing which types of posts will be seen.  Mark Zuckerberg appeared on Joe Rogan's show, admitting he was approached by the FBI in reference to how to present (or not to present) information which had a rather clear political bias.

I have seen editing done on many people's posts, not for inappropriate content, but for voicing an opinion that was not done in a cruel way, yet was deemed merely wrong data.  Yet again, news outlets sling much hate and opinionated statements all the time, and I ask myself where is the damage control, and where is the censorship which is so evident in other areas??

Yes, I realize that Facebook is not something that I pay a monthly fee for ...yet, it has become a huge platform for news and opinions, during a time when other fair & balanced news is becoming less available.  Or we are told what is fair & balanced ...and we are told what is accurate, and what is not, not based entirely on facts.

Here is a post I put on Facebook, which I often have trouble finding, as it at times just seems to disappear, but before it does again, I am entering it here:

 Am I wrong ...doesn't the Disinformation Board work to spread false information??

Silly me ...the Board is to 'prevent' the spread of certain harmful information.

Yes, I am getting older and more confused ...yet, shouldn't they at least call it the 'Misinformation' Board.

Disinformation implies intent ...and who would be so bold as to claim they know the intent?? Of course, these are intelligent people ...and they must know the difference between misinformation and disinformation, and they must have carefully decided to use that title. Yet, again ---by claiming intent so boldly, they must know they don't always know the intent ---and that in itself would be spreading disinformation.

To report that certain people are spreading information with the intent (often claimed) to harm others, can be considered beyond slander ...and it also incorporates censorship.

Now, I am not so against censorship that I think anything should be allowed. I am against hate speech, and don't think it should be allowed ...but, it goes too far if for example I am against a person born as a man competing in the Olympics in a woman's sport. If someone calls me a 'hater' because I believe that is not right or fair, then I don't believe I should be labeled as being intolerant, while at the same time my opinion is not tolerated.

I am also for censorship in the way that things used to be when the PTA had much influence in deciding what was not healthy to have broadcast on TV. I believe we are watching TV, movies, and video games which are becoming more violent with full artillery and assault weapons ...and no measures seem to have been taken to deal with the mindset that encourages someone to desire to be what they see in those venues.

Yet, we see the Department of Homeland Security overseeing FEMA, CBP, CISA, S&T, I&A ...and addressing 'disinformation' within a broad range of select topics which are arguably not fully supported as false information, and certainly no more harmful than if the information they are positing as true may in fact be possibly false at times.

And more disturbing are the studies I have read which all give a figure of nearly 75% (and often higher) for the percent of people who get most all their news from social media platforms. And can anyone say they know no one who has been censored on Facebook or Twitter?? Like I said, I think actual 'hate speech' should be censored ---but when they are so busy censoring about Climate Change (wait for it), and they don't focus on a person who posts outright disturbing things before going on their own real version of a video game ---well, to me that is terribly wrong.

(When I said, "Wait for it!" ...could it be for the first time I'm not getting that rectangular box in response to me using the words 'Climate Change', or is the newest approach for me to think I'm posting this publicly when others can't see it. I think it's comical, as I think others can see it, and though certain people always seem to 'Like' my posts, there are no responses here. Or is it that even my most loyal followers are tiring of the length of my posts??? Well, if that's the case, no need to worry that I may be going on too long ...so, I'll write more.)

And when social media enlists their own information, and the Disinformation Board does not view it as divisive and dangerous, allowing the spread of information that certain opinions are harmful and hateful ...well, that sort of approach reminds me too much of a certain group in Europe in the 1920s who were trying to rally people together.

As I was writing this, I did not know that during the very month of my venting that the Board was being dismantled (very unpopular with some people in Congress), but from what I read now, three months later, their agenda was not totally forgotten or abandoned, as there are other ways they can achieve their ends (and no, I don't know all who the 'they' are).  I just got locked out of Facebook a few days ago, I voiced my disagreement with that decision, but they just gave me a warning, and stated that if I continue to violate their 'Community Standards' ...well, rather bluntly, I will be locked out again.  I'm not blaming any one person, I just know that it happened ...and I don't know by who's influence or direction, I just know it happened.  And now this very blog has a posted warning on it, where I can't access it.  They can also say it is a virus, and someone in Asia is behind it ...yes, it is difficult to know what to think, yet it is also quite interesting that they don't seen overly concerned.

The thing they seem concerned with is if I say I don't believe in 'Climate Change' ...and they call that disinformation.  There is a long list as to what is considered a federal crime ...and among those listed, one of them states that it is a federal crimes to spread disinformation.  The reasons expressed in Congress to argue against a Disinformation Governance Board (which reportedly no longer exists) is that it is not clear who is qualified to decide what is correct information.  But, it seems they have different ways to do it ---whoever is doing it ---and it is happening to more & more of my blogs, not just this one. 

I could just dismiss it, and reason this whole thing out by thinking my computer has a virus ...but, I have a difficult time thinking that a plain virus would give reasons for why what is happening, is in fact happening.  I have never heard of a virus acting like a 'father figure'.  And speaking of father-son relationships, the mid-term elections are tomorrow ...so, who knows how that will go, or who will be acting like a spoiled child, having a temper tantrums because things didn't go the way they wanted them to.  

Strangely, though I can 'Google' most anything, if I type in 'Facebook' and click on it, it goes to where I have always clicked to get into Facebook ...but, now nothing happens.

Am I to assume that Google and Facebook coordinated that?? No, that is wild ...and would be a conspiracy theory.  And though I couldn't even see my own blog here, I now can access it ...and am updating this part. 

Can anyone else see it?? 

I don't know.

I have to fight off those conspiracies.   And the Disinformation Governance Board was taken down ...at least the board they had wanted us to accept, after several months of activity, having been bold enough to 'hang out their shingle'.  But, sadly they had to take it down.  Yet, it seems they are still operating without their shingle.

I should at least be thankful for my present circumstances.  Now that I'm not on social media as often, I've not been ignoring the kids as much ...though it seems they have adjusted, and are at times ignoring me. 

So, I decided to meet them on their level.  And we've been watching reruns of 'Gravity Falls' ...which has many anomalies happening.  The kids laugh, and I say to myself that Gruncle Stan understands that it is not just happening ...there is a reason. 

Years ago, way before we had iPhones ---and you never heard of anyone losing a phone because they could only go as far as the cord would go ---I read an article of a person who called a friend who lived across the Pacific Ocean.  They talked for several hours, and realized how expensive the call would be ...so, they both agreed to keep their phones off the hook (as they called it) for a 24-hour period.  When the huge bill came, the person said it must be a mistake ...who would talk for a full 24 hours?  And he didn't have to pay the bill.

At this point (if anyone is still listening), I usually get asked, "What's your point?"

Knowing I've been going on & on, I usually ask, "Are you going to listen to my point?"

At that point I would expect, "If you stop babbling, and are able to say what you want to say in a couple minutes."  But, my kids are too polite to respond that way.

I forget that the world is much different now, and how can anyone be totally immune to the subtle takeover by social media.  Someone on Facebook once said that they wish Facebook would limit dialogue to a few words ...like Twitter does.  That person commented during the time when a 'tweet' was limited to 140 characters. I do hope that person did not suffer mental health issues when Twitter doubled their limit to 280 characters.  I should have been more compassionate and assured them that everything would be okay ...that no one was forcing them to read.

And that is the great advantage ...with limiting information, and getting us more familiar with social media, where we get inundated with information in bits and pieces.  We get all the 'talking points' ...and since news briefs are often selective and slanted, the impression is still effectively made.  And the wildest things can be done in reality ...and the response can be like that phone call across the Pacific, pointing out the absurdity of it, so it gets dismissed.

It gets to the point where one doesn't know whether the wild and absurd is true, or whether it is 'fake news'.  I personally believe that most reporting on 'Climate Change' is fake news ...but, it is touted as one of the most important and critical issues of our day.  Yet, in my mind the true climate issue is not saving the earth itself, but saving the people from the climate of fear which is one of the biggest promoters of indoctrination.

And I am not radical, nor do I protest.  I recycle and I don't put any pesticides on my yard ...I like dandelions. (I guess that comes from being a Green Bay Packer fan ...so, I like the green-yellow combination.)

I also wonder about that documentary film, 'An Inconvenient Truth' that came out in 2006, and was shown to school children across the nation.  And that famous line, "Your parents know some things, but there are some things they don't know." ---spoken to elementary school children. Well, I am a parent ...and I admit there are things I don't know, but I don't believe this topic is one of them.  If you want to sincerely have this conversation, I will have it.  But, if you want to send out a 'tweet' and move on, then you can blame others for not blindly following, but you have to attempt to listen to convince. (https://famousgameshow.blogspot.com)

 it is also convenient to follow the simple guidelines which Saul Alinsky listed in his radical book, and which I also experienced while working with some severe cases of aggressive antisocial behaviors in the prison.  That is, to loudly and angrily accuse someone else of doing the very thing you intend to do yourself.  It attempts to throw the suspicion elsewhere, and it busies everyone with having to deal with your demands ...so, having created the diversion, your own agenda is accomplished.

Of course, I'm getting old ...and why listen to me. I must not be getting enough of social media to rightly rile me.

Now, tomorrow is almost here ---and I'm a bit old-fashioned, as I'm thinking I should relax, and think of how my parents went through rougher times, but taught me enough ---and I so much appreciate them for what they did for me and how they brought me up. And I wish so many of the the same values for my children.  We will laugh together as we watch 'Gravity Falls', and hope that during out joyful distraction the nation doesn't fall.

Our nation will not likely fall ...it is just building up in a way that I don't think is healthy.  But, ultimately ---whatever we decide upon, vote on, or promote ---I hope God is not left out of or consideration.

Got to focus on the best things in life ...and not predict trouble, but learn how to approach difficulties productively. We often can't change the world, but we shouldn't let it change us either ...if change is necessary, God will direct it. (And we are not to be confused between His leading and our own.)

*********************************************************************

(Were the apostles like some of today's religious extremists??)