NERDS AT SXSW LISTEN TO FREE SPEECH DEBATE OVER FACEBOOK AND TWITTER. GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR FAILS THE CONSTITUTION TEST.

Once again, it is time for South by Southwest, also known by the initialism SXSW, the nerdfest / Internet trade show of sorts that goes every March in Austin, Texas. At this year's twenty-something, big-tent nerdism revival and platform to shape public opinion by sway-masters, the organizers held a panel discussion over censorship by executives of social media giants, Facebook and Twitter.

George Anders over at Forbes wrote that George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen urged Twitter and Facebook to allow just as much free speech as the U.S. government permits under the First Amendment. It's quite sad to discover that a law professor believes that Congress and the President allow free speech.

As part of the agreement known as the U.S. Constitution that establishes the Congress as well as the Presidency, the Congress has a duty not to create any law, which would abridge (lessen, diminish, curtail) the freedom of free speech. Further, freedom, the Old English word for liberty, means the absence of law in the presence of legislators and their agencies, or that which we call government.

The essence of freedom is no law. Without law, legislators cannot assign duty nor right. Every law requires both a right and a corresponding duty.

In spite of bogus Supreme Court rulings, never should anyone ever get prosecuted for anything said, anytime in a public forum. However, neither Twitter nor Facebook are public forums.

The execs of Facebook and Twitter are right to take down anything, anytime, not because anyone in particular might be offended by what someone else expresses. Rather execs are right to do so because they are the stewards of those who have property, which is the right of ownership and not what is owned) in Facebook or in Twitter.

If you owned a comedy club and Michael Richards took the stage ranting, shouting the word niggers, you would be right to yank Richards from the stage. The same goes for the execs of Facebook and Twitter.

Read more ...

WOULD YOU BELIEVE 2 OF 10 THE EARTH OVER LOG INTO FACEBOOK EACH MONTH? I DON'T.

I stumbled upon more public stupidity today, this time, over at Venture Beat. Writer Jordan Novet parroted a claim that "Facebook ... now boasts 1.28 billion monthly active users." 

Right now, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates there are 7.175 billion on the earth. If Facebook had 1.28 billion monthly active users, that would be almost two of every 10 on earth were logging into Facebook to show off pictures and brag about their summer vacations paid with HELOCs.

Do you believe that 2 of every 10 living in India checked into their non-existent Facebook account today with the computer or smartphone they don't own and the Internet access that doesn't exist?

Do you believe that 2 of every 10 living in western China checked in last week?  Do you believe that 2 of every 10 living in the many countries of Africa checked in only this morning? How about those tribal ones living in the jungles of Brazil or maybe Papua New Guinea, did 2 of 10 of them check into their Facebook account to write a timeline update the other day?

According to SocialBakers, about 4% of Africans used Facebook at all in 2013. Africans constitute 15% of the world, or roughly 1.5 in 10, which when rounded to a whole person is 2 in 10. So 4% of Facebook-using Africans would count up to a puny 4 in 100. 

So where are those 16 Africans supposedly using Facebook?

SocialBakers also reports 247.7 million Asians using Facebook. That comes to 5.7% of all Asians. Said another way, that is 6 out of every 100. So where are the missing 14 Asians supposedly using Facebook?

Asians comprise 60% of world population. Together, Asians and Africans comprise 75% of world population. 

Using numbers from SocialBakers and Wikipedia already cited, total Facebook users constitute 12.7% of world population. That comes to 13 in 100 or roughly 1 in 10. And while that seems impressive, again, how many of those accounts never fire up a view on Facebook but only use Facebook to log into other web sites?

A reasonable estimate would be closer to 138.1 million log ins monthly with about 75% of those logging in to use Facebook credentials elsewhere. Even that might be outrageously high.

Read more ...

BUT ARE YOU A MALE OR A FEMALE? FACEBOOK EXECS GET INTO GENDER-BENDING

In a likely desperate attempt to stem defection of young users, execs at Facebook have decided to pander to the hipster generation by letting Facebook users select one of 50 labels to describe their sexual preferences, which mistakenly Facebook implementers call gender.

Many have boosted a false belief to support a political agenda, a false belief about a "spectrum of genders." There isn't a spectrum. That is mere rhetoric to justify politician action by those who form groups claiming that others owe them duties and thus they have rights, which those not in their group do not.

For humans, there are two states — [1] sexual being either male (YX) or female (XX) and [2] asexual mutation deformity, e.g., hermaphrodite, Klinefelter Syndrome,  Turner Syndrome, XYY syndrome

Those suffering from asexual mutation deformity such as Hermaphrodites cannot make life. To make human life, there must be one male (YX) and one female (XX), both of whom are the sexes, which are capable of reproduction through providing one half of a diploid chromosome pair.

That is the natural normal reality.  The foregoing is inescapable biological fact.

There isn't a spectrum of sexes. Hermaphrodites have suffered a horrible genetic mutation and thus are born deformed. Hermaphrodites are asexual. 

No amount of wishful thinking of two asexuals or two homosexuals can make life, not matter how much frotting they do. Such behavior is as successful in bringing forth life as a dog humping a human's leg.

Many seem to confuse sexual preferences as expressed in mind-disorder driven deviance (and there are many of those) with sex, male or female.

Humans have sex. Languages have gender, e.g. le, la, el, la, der, die.

The word gender enters into English about 1300 from the Old French gendre meaning kind, sort, class. By the late 1300s, English speakers said the word with its grammatical meaning.

By 1963, feminists of the 20th century seized on the word to push their agenda through feminist writing. By 1980, entertainment media writers began spreading the phrase gender-bender in reference to sexually ambiguous rock stars.

It looks like the geniuses of Facebook shall boost butchering of English as well.

Users also now have the ability to choose the pronoun they'd like to be referred to publicly: he/his, she/her, or the neuter they/their.

They is the third person, plural subject pronoun and their is the third person, plural possessive pronoun. They and their are Old Norse þeir and þierra from the Danelaw days.

Far too many are far too willing to become indoctrinated into false beliefs, indoctrinated by the rhetoric and opinions of academicians and media workers. And the march toward Idiocracy moves onward.

Read more ...

FROM THE DOTCOM ERA AND BEYOND, AMAZON TRUMPS ALL

According to GeekWire, a $1,000 investment in Amazon from the IPO would be worth $239,045. That is 239 times return on money staked.

eBay and Yahoo end up as great investment decisions. Google ends up as an OK investment decision. Comparatively speaking, LinkedIn ends up as a weak decision and Facebook ends up as a quite bad decision.

Now let's take those numbers above and truly put those numbers into perspective. Look at those surprises!

On a yearly basis since the respective IPOs, Google ends up being the second worst investment though yielding a bit more than 1.5 times Facebook. Yet, for years, the chatterheads on CNBC, Bloomberg and elsewhere on blogs have decried Yahoo! as a poorly run business while singing praises for Google.



What is the lesson here? Jeff Bezos and the succession of execs at eBay have proven the real money on the Internet comes from selling goods packaged in boxes along with brokering sales of goods packaged in boxes.


Social media fail to make good investments. The costs associated to run social media are high. Yet, in spite of growing revenues, revenues fail to exceed costs.

Look at Twitter. The kiddies who run Twitter never have been able to turn a profit in seven years! According to 
Bloomberg, in a recent filing, Twitter execs reported doubling revenue in its third quarter of accounting, yet those execs could only do so by quadrupling their losses.

All should be surprised even when professionals take over Twitter after the IPO, that Twitter ever turns a profit.

By wasting untold resources on G+, Google execs have drifted far from their model as a digital billboard by pushing ads on anyone's internet property through Doubleclick and AdMob. For the hundreds of millions Google execs squandered on G+ and G+ related acquisitions, these same execs could have added an alike functionality to Blogger for pennies per blog. Blogger already supports advertising welcomed by tens of millions of Blogger users.

Read more ...