. . . book. . .
. . . or Facebook . . . or something . . .
(from http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/05/19/revealed-barack-obama-talked-directly-mark-zuckerberg-facebook-concerns/ . . . with commentary from me)
BB: "Obama was one of the instigators of the “fake news” panic that has put Facebook in the establishment’s CROSSHAIRS following the election of Donald Trump. "
ME: I realize fake news was addressed to, and originated with, both political 'camps.' "Panic" though? What panic? Why Breitbart (and fox also, I'm sure) panic, of course. In any case, I suppose those of us non-NRA members are not part of the establishment putting Facebook in the CROSSHAIRS! And though, no particularly ardent fan of Barack Obama, I believe these folks put forth an convincing argument (or any kind of thesis at all) with the first sentence accusing Obama of being one instigator of the 'panic' etc. to which I've already referred.
BB: "According to a major New York Times Magazine feature on the future of Facebook, he is also holding private discussions with Mark Zuckerberg."
ME: Meaning, I surmise, that I, as part of the aforementioned 'establishment' must be concerned for some reason?
BB: "Earlier that day, Zuckerberg’s staff had sent me a draft of a 5,700 word manifesto that, I was told, he spent weeks writing. The document, “Building Global Community,” argued that until now, Facebook’s corporate goal had merely been to connect people. But that was just Step 1. According to the manifesto, Facebook’s “next focus will be developing the social infrastructure for community — for supporting us, for keeping us safe, for informing us, for civic engagement, and for inclusion of all.” If it was a nebulous crusade, it was also vast in its ambition.
ME: Nebulous, yes. But to which part of it did you object?
BB: "Facebook’s spokespeople then called the New York Times Magazine reporter to clarify the CEO’s comments, which the reporter interpreted as an attempt to counter the perception that the new manifesto was “partisan” and “anti-Trump.”"
ME: Seems the reporter possesses interpretation and perception issues.
BB: "Facebook’s spokespeople later called to stress that Obama was only one of many people to whom he had spoken. In other words: Don’t read this as a partisan anti-Trump manifesto. But if the company pursues the admittedly airy aims outlined in “Building Global Community,” the changes will echo across media and politics, and some are bound to be considered partisan."
ME: Now Facebook's spokespeople AND the reporter seem to have issues. AND, if this can in any way be viewed as a partisan issue, then my takeaway is that Obama and Facebook opponents (republicans? Trump-ites?) are anti-Global Community (read isolationist?).
