이어 "언론인인 피고인이 직업관이 투철해서 진실을 파헤치려는 마음으로 JTBC와 투쟁해온 점, 자유민주주의 국가의 큰 가치인 표현의 자유가 보호돼야 한다는 점에서 최대한 관용을 베풀어달라"고 요청했다.
변씨는 최후진술에서 "(태블릿 PC와 관련한) 진실이 밝혀지지 않기 때문에 내가 아니더라도 다른 사람이 또 고발을 하고 있다"면서도 "집회에서 발언이 세지는 측면이 있는데 손석희 JTBC 사장에게 부적절한 발언을 한 점은 사과하고 싶다"고 말했다.
---->탄핵 사태의 핵심인 태블릿은 절대 말해서는 안 되는 금기사항이라는 뜻이다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[교황방북으로 사기친 文]
바티칸에 교황을 방문한 文은 “김정은이 초청장을 보내면 북한에 가실겁니까?]라고 돼지의 전령질을 했는데, 세계 모든 종교의 수장중에 제일 영행력이 있고 제일 유명한 교황이 文의 면전에 놓고 ”그런 것 보낼 필요없다 안간다“고 말합니까? 그런말을 하려면 文을 만나주지도 않지요.
알고보니 교황은 단지 “초청장을 보내면 긍정적으로 검토하겠다”는 의례적이고 극히 의전적인 대답을 했습니다. 文은 그 대답이 <완곡한 거부>라는 것을 알았을 겁니다. 그런데 교황을 만나고 나온 文은 졸개들과 기자들 앞에서 “교황이 방북하기로했다”고 호들갑을 떨었습니다. 당시 어느신문 기사엔[참모들이 감격하여 아! 하는 탄성이 나왔다]라며 교황의 방북이 기정 사실인 것처럼 덩달아 사기쳤습니다.
그 소식에 좌빨 개돼지들은 “文이 교황의 방북을 성사시켰다”며 "역시 文"이라며 환호작약했지요. 그러나 당시 외신엔 그런 워딩은 [교황의 완곡한 거부]라는게 연속으로 보도 되는데도 국내언론은 [교황! 방북 거부]라는 외국의 시각을 한군데도 보도하지 않더군요. 일본의 어느 방송은 ‘교황방북이 거부 됐는데도 마치 방북이 성사된 듯이 국민들을 선동 한다’고 전하며 비웃는 논조더군요.
文은 그 때 <교황방북>으로 개돼지들을 한번 환호케한후 지금까지 그 말은 입도뻥긋 안합니다. 이 방법이 좌빨의 선동 방법입니다. 아닌걸 알면서도 성사된 것처럼 바람몰이로 개돼지들을 감격케하여 단물을 빼 먹은후, 입을 싹 닦는겁니다.
오늘 통일부 차관이란놈이 “년내 김정은의 방남이 성사 될 수있다”고 언급했는데 이 말도 바로 그런 류의 바람몰이 사기질입니다. 마치 김정은의 방남이 결정된 것 같은 뉘앙스를 풍기며 저런 말을하면 개돼지들은 또 감격합니다. 시선을 돌리려는 찰나에, 저런 말이 들리니 시선을 다른 곳으로 돌리지 못하고 또 환호합니다.
김정은 방남??웃기는 말입니다. 지난 여름 김정은은 완전히 철옹성 같은 판문점에 나타날 때도 12명의 호위졸개들이 뛰면서 차량을 완전히 애워싼 희한한 꼴로 등장했습니다.
당시 그곳에 있는 모든 사람들은 그 누구든 북의 요원들이 모두 철저히 검색하여 통과한 사람들 뿐인데도(그래서 그곳엔 총알이 하나도 없었어요) 그걸 못믿고 그 지랄했어요. 그런 놈인데, 하물며 원한에 사무친 탈북인 2만명과 성향을 모르는 50만명의 세계인이 모여있고 그들이 자유롭게 행동하는 서울에 온다??... 그것은 목숨을 내놓는 짓이지요.
그래도 만약 어떤 피치 못 할 사정에 의해 김정은이 온다면, 방남 결정후 최소 한달이 지나야 합니다. 한달간 최소 300명의 요원이 서울에 와서 동선을 샅샅히 점검 할 겁니다. 묵는곳등 모든 장소도 점검해야 합니다. 그게 은밀히 되겠습니까?
다시말해 금년은 물론 내년에도 김정은의 서울 관광은 없습니다. 김정은이 언제가됐든 서울에 온다면 체포되어 수갑차고 올 수는 있어요
다시말해 금년은 물론 내년에도 김정은의 서울 관광은 없습니다. 김정은이 언제가됐든 서울에 온다면 체포되어 수갑차고 올 수는 있어요
# 사족; 文은 비행기에서 <세계의 지도자들이 우리의 평화의지를 지지했다>고 자랑했는데, 당연한 말로 또 개돼지들을 현혹합니다. 그러면 그 사람들이 “우리는 니들의 평화의지를 지지하지 않으니 니들은 전쟁하라”고 합니까? 당연히 [평화의지를 지지한다]고 말하지요. 그러나 그들은 그 말뒤에 꼭 [그러므로 평화유지를 위해서는 북한이 핵을 cvid로 폐기하기전에는 제재완화는 안된다]란 말을하고 언론에 못 박듯이 공표했어요. 文은 뒤의 그 말을 뚝 잘라 숨기고 앞에 문장만 개돼지들에게 장황하게 자랑한 겁니다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
회귀한 대한민국.
다시 한번 말하지만 국민은 개돼지가 되었다. 이걸 깨달아야만 국민들이 각성해서 일어난다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
헛되이 물가를 통제하려 했던 디오클레티아누스의 칙령
The Edict of Diocletian
Murray N. Rothbard
[Previously unpublished online; Faith and Freedom 1, no. 4 (March 1950).]
Citizens of the old Roman Empire distrusted paper currency and refused to accept anything but gold or silver coin as money. So the rulers found themselves barred from inflating the money supply by the unobtrusive method of printing additional currency.
But the Roman emperors soon discovered an ingenious device. They proceeded to call in the coins of the realm, ostensibly for repairs. Then, by various means, such as filing off small parts of the coins, or introducing cheaper alloys, they reduced the silver content of the money without changing its original face value. This devalution enabled them to add many more silver coins to the Roman money supply. The practice was started by Nero, and accelerated by his successors. By Diocletian's time, the denarius (standard silver coin) had been reduced to one-tenth of its former value.
The result was a steep rise in prices throughout the vast Roman empire. As has happened throughout history, the public indignantly accused merchants and speculators of causing the rise in prices. It was generally agreed that the only remedy was stringent maximum price controls by the government.
Accordingly, Emperor Diocletian, a "friend of the people," issued his famous Edict in 301 A.D. setting ceiling prices on all types of commodities, and maximum wages for all occupations. A few typical examples: Beans, crushed, 100 denarii; beans, uncrushed, 60 den.; beans, dried kidney, 100 den. Veterinary, for clipping hoofs, 6 den. per animal. Veterinary, for bleeding heads, 20 den. per animal. Writer, for best writing, 25 den. per 100 lines. Writer, for writing of the second quality, 20 den. per 100 lines.
Diocletian's proclamation introducing the Edict bears marked resemblance to modern exhortations:
We must check the limitless and furious avarice which with no thought for mankind hastens to its own gain. This avarice, with no thought of the common need, is ravaging the wealth of those in extremes of need. We — the protectors of the human race — have agreed that justice should intervene as arbiter, so that the solution which mankind itself could not supply might, by the remedies of our foresight, be applied to the general betterment of all.
In the markets, immoderate prices are so widespread that the uncurbed passion for gain is not lessened by abundant supplies. Men whose aim it always is to profit, to restrain general prosperity, men who individually abounding in great riches which could completely satisfy whole nations, try to capture smaller fortunes and strive after ruinous percentages. Concern for humanity in general persuades us to set a limit to the avarice of such men. Profiteers, covertly attacking the public welfare, are extorting prices from merchandise such that in a single purchase a soldier is deprived of his bonus and salary.
Therefore, we have decreed that there be established a maximum so that when the violence of high prices appears anywhere, avarice might be checked by the limits of our statute. To ensure adequate enforcement, anyone who shall violate this statute shall be subject to a capital penalty. The same penalty shall apply to one who in the desire to buy shall have conspired against the statute with the greed of the seller. Also subject to the death penalty is he who believes he must withdraw his goods from the general market because of this regulation.
We urge upon the loyalty of all that a law constituted for the public good may be observed with obedience and care.
If anyone could force people to trade at the ceiling prices, Diocletian was the man. Yet the absolute emperor of the civilized world, a veteran general with myriads of secret police at his command, was soon forced to surrender. After a short interval almost nothing was offered for sale, and there was a great scarcity of all goods.
Diocletian was obliged to repeal the price-fixing Edict. Prices were finally stabilized in 307 A.D. when the government stopped diluting the money supply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
미국 버지니아주 알링턴에서 공짜 치즈케이크 행사가 있었는데, 사람들이 너무 몰려들어 엄청난 혼잡을 겪었다고 한다. 이런 일은 한국이나 중국이라면 이해가 가는데, 미국에서 일어났다. 미국의 경제가 호경기라고 하는데, 이 동네는 예외인가?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the words of economist and scholar Arnold Kling, Martin Gurri saw it coming. Technology has categorically reversed the information balance of power between the public and the elites who manage the great hierarchical institutions of the industrial age government, political parties, the media.
The Revolt of the Public tells the story of how insurgencies, enabled by digital devices and a vast information sphere, have mobilized millions of ordinary people around the world. Originally published in 2014, this updated edition of The Revolt of the Public includes an extensive analysis of Donald Trump's improbable rise to the presidency and the electoral triumphs of Brexit and concludes with a speculative look forward, pondering whether the current elite class can bring about a reformation of the democratic process, and whether new organizing principles, adapted to a digital world, can arise out of the present political turbulence.
"All over the world, elite institutions from governments to media to academia are losing their authority and monopoly control of information to dynamic amateurs and the broader public. This book, until now only in samizdat (and Kindle) form, has been my #1 handout for the last several years to anyone seeking to understand this unfolding shift in power from hierarchies to networks in the age of the Internet." --Marc Andreessen, co-founder, Netscape and Andreessen Horowitz
"We are in an open war between publics with passionate and untutored interests and elites who believe they have the right to guide those publics. Gurri asks the essential question: can liberal representative democracy survive the rise of the publics? --Roger Berkowitz, Founder and Academic Director of the Hannah Arendt Center, Professor of Politics and Human Rights at Bard College
아마존의 책 광고인데, 소셜 미디어의 등장으로 기존의 위계질서가 붕괴되고, 네트워크로 권력의 중심이 이동하고 있다는 논지이다.
얼마 전에 닐 퍼거슨도 위계질서와 네트워크의 대결과 갈등을 논한 책을 출판했다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
잠비아에서는 코끼리가 제일 먼저 길을 닦는다,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
인터넷 거대 기업들이 지닌 거대한 권력
The Creepy Line: A New Documentary on the Immense Power of Tech Giants
Ryan McMaken
The Creepy Line, a new documentary by director M.A. Taylor, is now streaming at Amazon Prime. It provides an interesting and revealing look at how Google and Facebook influence their users' view of the world, and how the users we often presume to be the customers of these companies aren't really the customers. The users are, in fact, the product being sold to third parties.
The Creepy Line takes its title from a description of Google once uttered by Google executive Eric Schmidt who said Google's mission was to “get right up to the creepy line and not cross it.”
In truth, though, by pioneering the "surveillance business model," Google has been been arguably been stepping over "the creepy line" for years. Not that this has been much of a problem for the company. Few users seem motivated to stop using Google products.
Is is perhaps in its basic explanations of how this surveillance model works that The Creepy Line is most interesting: the filmmakers explain in simple terms how a small number of companies have come to compile extensive data profiles of many hundreds of millions of human beings, and how that user data is the real product being sold by the companies that compile it.
The Surveillance Model
There's a lot of money to be made by helping advertisers target specific potential customers. This can be done if a company can find way cheap and easy ways to collect information on the consumers advertisers wish to target. Successful tech giants can offer this data — and huge amounts of it.
In order to offer advertisers data on potential customers, though, a company first has to collect it. And in order to collect it, the company must offer some sort of bait for the users to seize upon, thus leaving behind their personal data. Over the past 20 years, Google and Facebook have perfected the art of convincing users to trade online services for their personal data. And the companies' capabilities have expanded with time.
For example, in the early days, if internet users didn't use the Google search engine to access a web site, Google didn't know about it. Users had to use Google's site in order to be tracked. This limited the information Google could collect. Eventually, though, Google — inspired in part by Apple — figured out it could track its users more fully by developing its own internet browser, and then developing its own computing devices.
So, while one could, once upon a time, avoid Google surveillance by going directly to a web site, data on everything you do on your Android phone or Chromebook is harvested, analyzed, and processed by Google.
Facebook, of course, has attempted similar levels of surveillance by using Facebook apps on smartphones to monitor most of what its users do with their phones. But whether or not one uses Facebook on a smart phone, the company collects data on every user's friends, his posts, his comments, and his instant messages.
This information is then used to sell highly specific targeted ads to advertisers.
You Are Not the Customer
The Creepy Line thus helps to explain one of the most important and economically significant aspects of the surveillance model in business: Google and Facebook users are not the customers. The real customers are the advertisers who use Facebook and Google for targeted advertising. The users are just the ones who give Google and Facebook something to sell.
It's true that users get something in return for their personal data. They receive the benefits (in terms of convenience) of using Google and Facebook services. But in this sense, the users are part of the process which creates the products and services sold by Google and Facebook to the customers.
Services like Gmail and Facebook aren't really free at all. They only appear free because the currency used to purchase these services isn't dollars. It's your personal information.
The film illustrates how, when it comes to companies that run on the surveillance model, our old notions of consumer sovereignty, producer sovereignty, and entrepreneur-client relationships don't apply the way we think they do. The users aren't the customers, and the profitability of Google and Facebook doesn't fundamentally rest on what the users do. What really matters is that Google and Facebook can continue to extract data from enough people so as to sell a product to advertisers. Surely, this will require Facebook and Google to keep up the appearance of wishing to "serve" the people who hand over their personal data. But in a world of such immense amounts of data, many users are expendable. And this is why companies like Google and Facebook have few scruples about banishing even popular users like Alex Jones or other controversial pundits and content creators. Those people aren't the customers. What really matters is the ad revenue
Controlling How We View the World
In order to keep users coming back to Facebook and Google, of course, these companies have to offer users something. In many cases, the services traded for personal data take the form of search results and the news feeds that many users have come to rely on.
This then brings us to another way Google and Facebook insinuate their company policies and views into our daily lives. By creating the software behind search results and new feeds, the owners and employees of these companies decide what information users consume.
This in itself is not especially surprising. After all, publishers throughout history have controlled what information is presented. Book authors, newspaper editors, and television producers control what information the viewers and readers are allowed to see.
There's nothing fundamentally different here, except perhaps in the fact that users of Google and Facebook have been especially naïve about the degree of power these tech giants have over the flow of information through their platforms.
After all, have not newspapers always cherry-picked what articles they run? Not even the "letters to the editor" feature has ever been an open forum. The editors choose which letters the readers see.
What The Creepy Line does, though, is remind us of how truly easy it is to manipulate users by framing and selecting the information they see.
As the film notes — and as most marketing consultants will tell you — fewer than ten percent of search engine users will ever get beyond the first page of search results. This means that Google has tremendous power in deciding what information is seen by the overwhelming majority of people performing web searches.
Certainly, there are those hardy souls who do real research by really digging into the information. They refine their searches, look deeply into the search results, and attempt to confirm the data they do find.
But this is only a tiny percentage of the population.
Moreover, surveys show that a majority of US adults use social media sites (predominantly Facebook) as a source of news. Many use Facebook as their primary source for news.
How many of these users cross-reference other sources of news? If the past is any indicator: very few.
After all, historically, most people have been content to consume whatever the newspapers tell them is the news. They consume whatever is on the evening news — whatever's convenient. The believe whatever Walter Cronkite tells them.
But this has always been an unfortunate reality of the media landscape — even before social media or Google. Most people will believe the news that can be consumed with the least effort. The novelty of Google and Facebook is that they have taken convenience to a whole new level.
Manipulating Ideology, Rigging Elections?
This power to control information, of course, could potentially extend to rigging elections by controlling what voters see about candidates.
Given that they theoretically have to power to do it, do Facebook and Google do this on purpose?
That has yet to be proven, although The Creepy Line presents this as more or less established fact.
And that's where most criticisms of the documentary come in. The fact that the director, M. A. Taylor, also made the anti-Clinton documentary Clinton Cash suggests to some reviewers that the documentary primarily exists to push a narrative in which tech giants are manipulating the public to support Democratic candidates.
This aspect of the documentary, however, dominates only the last third of the film — and I would suggest this is the weakest part of the film. It's likely that the filmmakers felt the film needed to make a very explicit and forceful political point to be seen as relevant or compelling. In some ways, though, this last section of the film gives the appearance that the filmmakers were trying too hard to "bring it home."
Besides, even if Google and Facebook do manipulate their news feeds and search results on purpose, this doesn't make them fundamentally different from the people who control what we see on CNN or Fox News.
Far more dangerous is the fact that the consumers of news haven't learned anything from decades of witnessing obvious bias in the legacy news media. In spite of the fact that the World Wide Web offers an immense variety of sources of news, research, and opinion, most users of media are content to let others be the last word in selecting the news they consume.
Although The Creepy Line has attempted to portray Google and Facebook as achieving a new level of nefariousness in this regard, the critical ingredient in the manipulation of voters remains the voters. It appears the voters are content to let themselves be manipulated. They could seek out news sources other than CNN or Google News or their Facebook news feed. Many simply choose not to.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기