Conservative news sites lash out at Facebook over bias claims

Politico: Conservative news sites are lashing out at Facebook after a report on Monday alleged that contractors for the social media giant were told to minimize links to their sites in its “trending news” column.
In statements to POLITICO, several right-leaning media outlets said they have no clear evidence of the practice, but that they long believed they were being discriminated against and hope Facebook to remedy any bias.
Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow said that while Breitbart News has “remained in the top 25 Facebook publishers for six months,” the Gizmodo report confirms what “conservatives have long suspected: Facebook’s trending news artificially mutes conservatives and amplifies progressives.”
“Facebook claims its algorithm simply populates ‘topics that have recently become popular on Facebook’ in its trending news section, but now we know that’s not true,” Marlow said in an email. “In a spirit of transparency and community, we invite Mark Zuckerberg to do a Facebook Live interview with Breitbart News Tech Editor Milo Yiannopoulos to explain to the tens of millions of conservatives on Facebook why they’re being discriminated against.”
RedState managing editor Leon Wolf said they haven’t seen evidence of discrimination but would be “extremely disappointed if a supposed honest broker of online news was putting a finger on the scales to harm conservative viewpoints.”
“We are glad that increased attention is being paid to the tremendous influence that Facebook wields in the way people consume their news, and are hopeful that, at the end of the day, Facebook will honor its commitment to its users to be an honest broker of news content,” Wolf said.
Washington Examiner editorial director Hugo Gordon said the report is “obviously of considerable interest to us” and they plan to work with Facebook “to ensure Washington Examiner’s valuable content gets the attention it obviously deserves.”
Newsmax executive editor Ken Chandler said that while there isn’t hard evidence, “we don’t think we’re getting the exposure we deserve on some of our stories.”
“We don’t generally subscribe to the view that Facebook or even Google are out to get conservatives, but it seems like with Facebook there have been some issues,” he told POLITICO.
Chandler says Newsmax plans to work with Facebook to resolve the issue.
Daily Caller executive editor Vince Coglianese said in an email that “it’s extremely important for news consumers to understand” that sites like Facebook exercise “incredible control over what news actually gets delivered.”
Coglianese said they’ve been surprised in the past to find that Facebook has delivered millions of views to some of its entertainment coverage, but not nearly the same as its political coverage.
“In March, for example, Facebook delivered nearly 5 million page views to this piece alone: Pink Just Blew Kim Kardashian Away With This Sobering Message. And that’s not the first time Facebook has awarded our entertainment coverage with ridiculous traffic.Compare that to our political coverage, which fetched about 10 million page views during the same month — from all sources,” he said. “If this week’s reports are true, Facebook’s real disservice is to its users, who aren’t even being delivered the content they signed up for in the first place.”

Posted in Facebook | Comments Off on Conservative news sites lash out at Facebook over bias claims

Jerusalem & Babylon With Trump in Mind, Two Rare and Valuable Examples of Leaders Who Refuse to Play on Our Baser Instincts

So does this writer Anshel Pfeffer want open borders for Israel? Does he want Israel to cease to exist as a Jewish state? If so, he is consistent. If not, he should shut up.

I can only hope that more Muslims move onto his block so he can enjoy their diversity.

Haaretz: A rabbi from Jerusalem who held his followers in check against harming coexistence, and a Muslim mayoral candidate in London who’s totally uninterested in winning an election on communal tensions.

Twenty-five years ago, on a Shabbat morning on a quiet south Jerusalem street, a small group of black-coated men gathered outside a restaurant and began shouting “Shabbes! and “gevalt!” A common sight in other parts of Jerusalem, where businesses opening on the day of rest were targeted by rioters, but not in that particular neighborhood.
There were only a few employees in the restaurant, which had yet to start serving lunch, and the local residents who shouted back at the protesters were mainly religious men walking back from morning prayers. They weren’t that pleased themselves with the non-kosher restaurant opening on Emek Refaim Street on Shabbat, but they were even more determined not to allow the place to become a scene of religious strife. The shouting quickly developed into an awkward shoving match and, outnumbered, the ultra-Orthodox men beat a hasty retreat towards the Ohel Shimon Yeshiva down Rachel Imenu Street. Their departure did little to dispel the heavy feeling that one of the city’s more peaceful areas was about to become yet another battleground between secular and ultra-Orthodox Jews.
Enter the rebbe
The episode, however, had a rather unorthodox ending. On Sunday morning, Rabbi Yochanan Sofer, the rebbe of the Erlau (known by all under its Yiddish name Erloy) Hasidic court, whose center was the yeshiva he founded in the neighborhood in 1953, sent messengers to business owners on Emek Refaim to apologize for the disturbance and assure them that the men who had gathered outside the restaurant had not been his Hasidim, but Shabbat guests who had been rebuked for their action. Two weeks ago, the Erloyer rebbe passed away at 93. The Haredi media naturally has been full of wondrous stories of Sofer’s life, his survival of the Holocaust in Hungary and the rebuilding of his Hasidic dynasty after the destruction. For me and many others who grew up in that neighborhood, however, Rabbi Sofer and Erloy was a miracle of coexistence.
While in just about every other part of Jerusalem, different religious groups cannot live side by side without fighting over buildings, resources and their perceived rights, the little Erloy community never sought to change the atmosphere of the neighborhood. When they grew over the years, Sofer sent the newly married couples to live in predominantly Haredi areas, rather than try and take over housing blocks in the yeshiva’s vicinity. He didn’t lack political influence at the local and national level, and could certainly have secured more real estate than the yeshiva, a handful of apartment buildings and a kindergarten his followers occupied in the nearby streets, but he gave more value to living at peace with his neighbors.

What an influence one charismatic person can have in keeping the peace between potentially hostile communities. Four thousand kilometers from Jerusalem, a British Muslim politician is emerging as a surprising figure of coexistence as well.
I wrote eight months ago that the forthcoming mayoral election campaign in London could become a very tense period for the city’s Jews and other minorities. There were good reasons for this fear. The entrance into the campaign of George Galloway, a notorious exploiter of racial hatred, who had already won one parliamentary campaign before in London in which the incumbent, Oona King, a courageous black MP who is also half-Jewish, was the subject of a vicious anti-Semitic smear campaign. Galloway went on to win another election in northern England where he played rival British-Pakistani clans against each other. (He lost the next election, when this time smearing his female challenger, who was accused of trying to “defame Islam,” backfired.)
Another reason for this fear was the evil wind blowing through parts of the dominant political party on London’s local scene, Labour, which last year overwhelmingly voted in as leader Jeremy Corbyn, its members unperturbed at his endorsement of and friendship with terrorists, anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers. Labour’s previous mayoral candidate, Ken Livingstone, had already said in 2012 that he wasn’t expecting Jews to vote for the party as they were too wealthy to be Labour supporters anyway.
London’s anti-Galloway
In Britain, which is already struggling with issues of identity, immigration and tensions between minority communities, both within the United Kingdom and in its relationship with Europe, the London election could easily have been dragged to a very ugly place. Galloway certainly tried to do so when he accused Labour’s candidate, Sadiq Khan, of “turning his own people into scapegoats for votes.” The right-wing media have been trying to do the same to Khan from the other side, by portraying him as an extremist over his work as a human-rights lawyer and on behalf of his own constituents, and over the ancient involvement of his family in Islamic organizations. But these accusations haven’t stuck, for the basic reason that Khan seems to be totally uninterested in winning an election on communal tensions.
Despite Galloway’s efforts and the right-wing smears, Khan is running a campaign of deep and serious engagement with all of multiracial London’s communities, with a special emphasis on the Jews. He doesn’t have to, and it probably isn’t going to garner many votes. Many Jews will vote for the Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith, and not because of his own Jewish roots, but because they understandably want to punish Labour for electing Corbyn as its leader. Khan would probably be much better off electorally by spending his time shoring up the networks in the Muslim community that Livingstone built, and, like him, maintaining little more than a cordial relationship with the Jews. Khan may still go down that road; some Londoners I’ve spoken to think he’s just another cynical bastard and the mask will fall before long, but so far he is doing the opposite and what could have been a tense and divisive election period in London is surprisingly calm.
Whether it’s a small neighborhood or a great city or a nation, sometimes all it needs is a leader who prefers to appeal to people’s better nature than to their fears and prejudices. Just as it only takes one charismatic fear-monger to bring the worst out of us.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on Jerusalem & Babylon With Trump in Mind, Two Rare and Valuable Examples of Leaders Who Refuse to Play on Our Baser Instincts

Jewish Journal Drags The Bottom Of The Barrel To Publish More Rants Against Donald Trump

The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles will reach for anything and anyone to try to bash Trump. It’s pathetic, like this op-ed by attorney Yoni Fife (warning, it’s almost unbearable to try to read more than a paragraph or two, it’s just execrable writing and reasoning and snottiness on display):

I can no longer consider myself a Republican

I certainly have not identified as a conservative and a Republican because it was fun or a helpful way to ensure that I was the most popular person in the room. I remained a proud Republican in spite of asinine, indefensible positions my party advocated or articulated over the years… Prop 187, a nuance-free pro-life stance, “f**k-the-Jews-they-don’t-vote-for-us-anyway,” a foolish, dangerous, destructive and counterproductive approach to drug laws and their enforcement, a flat rejection of LGBT rights, an aversion to tax increases of any kind regardless of the state of the treasury, and financing off the books and on credit the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – wars I believe were just and necessary, though poorly managed and executed – all come to mind in this context. None of these were great ideas. None of them were easy to defend to my family and friends. But, through all of that, and more, I remained a member of the party.

When did he graduate high school? 1998? If so, he was in seventh grade in 1994 for Prop. 187, so what is he complaining about?

This guy apparently is very difficult to please. See the New York Times from 2011:

“Yoni Fife, a Republican, said the current field did not impress him.”

yonif

Yoni Fife, 31, a lawyer and the lone Republican and McCain voter in the group, finds himself unmoved by the current Republican candidates, who he said were “way away” from where most American Jews were on social policies.

A reader tells me: “Yes, between him and Ben Shapiro they obviously were Republicans not only in utero, but pre utero when they stuffed envelopes for Barry Goldwater and manned phone banks in 1966 for Ronald Reagan.

Not only is Fife incoherent, but he fails to disclose his very real investment (pun intended) in not upsetting the status quo.”

Nicholas Stix tweets: “I guess it’s like the #WashingtonPost, with its weekly “Trump=Hitler” feature. They had a quota to fill. He makes anti-Semites look sensible. It IDs the mook as a lawyer. I hope he doesn’t do trials. His closings [would] put juries to sleep.”

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Jewish Journal Drags The Bottom Of The Barrel To Publish More Rants Against Donald Trump

The Erotic Haze

A good essay on cybersex addiction:

What Sara didn’t understand was that no mortal human being could ever live up to the “erotic haze”—the dopamine-enhanced, highly aroused state that the sex addict enters into when he was acting out that really had little to do with sex with a real woman. A real-life person can never compete with a fantasy. She also didn’t understand that she held no responsibility for the situation, that Steve’s condition resulted from childhood trauma and that he carried the emotional wounds with him well before he ever met her.

In treatment, Sara relayed that it wasn’t the sexual behavior that hurt her as much as the lies and secrets that surrounded the behavior. It was that that she didn’t know if she could forgive. She doubted she could ever trust him again.

For years, Steve would tell her she was “crazy” when she suspected something. She needed to accept that she did not cause the problem and that she could not control it.

For a number of years, Sara, like so many women before her, became obsessive about “spying” on her mate; repeatedly checking computer hard drives, smartphones, texts, videos, webcams, emails, etc. to see if he was acting out. She said she felt crazy when she did this, but she continued to try to obtain more control over a situation over which she felt powerless.

Sara agreed to begin to attend S-anon, a 12-step program for partners of sex addicts where she met women who were able to give her support and empathy. At the same time, she started treatment with a therapist I referred her to, while they both continued couples therapy.

Psychodynamics

One year after treatment began, Steve announced that he was terminating treatment. I encouraged him to talk about what had led him to this decision. Our exploration revealed his fantasy that I would punish and humiliate him for having “failed” after having been so sure of himself. Further work indicated relationships between this fantasy and Steve’s shame about his fall from grandiosity and his need for help, his envy and resentment of me, and a number of emotionally significant childhood experiences with both his parents. Steve’s ability to discuss these things in a safe environment enabled him to see me less as a bully and more as a stable and stabilizing mentor who might be able to help him out of the mess that he now knew to be his inner life.

Effects of Treatment

As treatment progressed, Steve began to realize that these fantasy-based transient sexual encounters were not what he was really looking for, since they would not satisfy him or meet his needs for intimate connection.

Posted in Addiction | Comments Off on The Erotic Haze

Obama’s Gift of Immunity to Trump

Victor Davis Hanson sways back and forth between conservatism, nationalism and realism.

He writes: It is now old wisdom that Barack Obama created Trump—as in the idea of a national pushback to Obama’s out-of-the-mainstream agendas and the unconstitutional way in which he pursued them. Forgotten is the insulation that Obama has also provided for the excesses of Trump as a candidate and, especially, if he were to be president.

Last week, in sober and judicious tones Obama all but warned Americans that they cannot seriously support Trump, who, he implied, is little more than a reality-TV conman. But such admonitions come from a president whose chief foreign policy advisor, a failed fiction writer and D.C. insider, just bragged how he deceived the media and Washington’s insider world by feeding amateurish journalists misleading talking points. Is it serious or in the spirit of reality TV for a president to invite to the White House a rapper whose court-ordered ankle monitor goes off in a presidential ceremony, or to give an exclusive interview with YouTube personality GloZell, noted for her selfies of eating breakfast cereal floating about her in a bathtub? Obama has lectured the media that they have to vent Trump, this from a candidate who never released his medical or college records, whose speech in praise of Rashid Khalidi was suppressed by the media, and whose entire memoir was only belatedly found out to be impressionistic fiction. Obama lowered the bar and Trump skipped over it.

Can Trump mislead much more than did Obama, who assured Americans that they would never lose their doctor or health plan but rather save money and have better care, and that pulling peacekeepers from Iraq would ensure a stable and self-reliant country? Obama, remember, also bragged abroad that he had all but closed Guantanamo within a year and would stop the Bush habit of piling up more debt? After Ben Rhodes and Jonathan Gruber, what exactly are the presidential standards on veracity that we must hold Trump to?

Can Trump act any less constitutionally than has Obama? Will he scan existing law, and order his attorney general to enforce some statutes but ignore others? Will he boast that “I won” and thus has a pen and a phone to sign treaties with foreign countries without Senate ratification? Will Trump, in Obama fashion, threaten to cut off federal funds to cities that believe in biologically identified male/female restrooms, while encouraging other cities to defy federal immigration law? Sanctuary cities in California, but not in North Carolina? Are we back to 1860 and state nullification of federal law if and when the president wishes it?

How can the media fault Trump as uniquely dense for lacking even basic familiarity with geography or foreign affairs, when they shrugged after the current president of the United States variously believed there are 57 states, there is an Austrian-speaking Austria, and the Maldives islands are the Falklands? When a president declares that Hawaii is in Asia, certainly the media cannot be surprised that Trump is not embarrassed about being clueless about the nuclear triad.

Trump is certainly vicious, but after 2009 viciousness is no longer a mortal sin in presidential politics. If it were, Obama would have been through for his thuggish language, after advising supporters to “get in their faces,” take “a gun to a knife fight” and “punish our enemies.” Trump often ridicules the helpless. But he if stoops to make fun of the Special Olympics or jokes about vaporizing people with Predator drones, what will the New York Times or NPR do? Obama ridiculed the wealthy, who did not build their own businesses, or did not know when to stop profiting, or were clueless about the point at which they had made enough money or needed their money spread around. But then again, Obama made fun of the lower middle classes as well, who clung to their religion and guns and were stereotyped as xenophobes and nativists.

Trump can be polarizing on matters of race, but here again by what standard—when the president and his team have established new lows of racial discourse? Does Trump comment on ongoing criminal cases by suggesting one of the involved might look like one of his possible white offspring? Did Trump smear illegal aliens further by suggesting that they were “typical Mexican persons”? Would he appoint an attorney general who might refer to whites as “my people” and accuse the country of being a “nation of cowards”? Would Trump stoop to wink and nod about shared white racial solidarity with a redneck comedian who shouted out to a President Trump, “Yo, Donny, you did it, my cracker, you did it”? After Obama, there are no rules about racial discourse—and no media sensitivity to racially coarse and offensive language.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Obama’s Gift of Immunity to Trump