When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
For at least a year, the biggest page on Facebook purporting to be part of the Black Lives Matter movement was a scam with ties to a middle-aged white man in Australia, a review of the page and associated accounts and websites conducted by CNN shows.
The page, titled simply "Black Lives Matter," had almost 700,000 followers on Facebook, more than twice as many as the official Black Lives Matter page. It was tied to online fundraisers that brought in at least $100,000 that supposedly went to Black Lives Matter causes in the U.S. At least some of the money, however, was transferred to Australian bank accounts, CNN has learned.
^
This made the news here in Australia and really needs more publicity to make people more wary about sending money to dodgy fundraising organisations.
Despite this, I was pretty impressed with his audacity and ability to identify a "niche charity" based on current events that had absolutely nothing to do with him and create a profitable scam from it (maybe that's just the convict blood in me talking?)
^This made the news here in Australia and really needs more publicity to make people more wary about sending money to dodgy fundraising organisations.
I don't understand why people are complaining about this. As I've read the whole thing, this particular FB page was a mimic of literally dozens of other "legitmate" ones that put out the same exact information. By all accounts, this page was no different that any other one... he just cornered the name early and had the best graphics.
I read a bunch of quotes from the page and nowhere on it did any fundraising ever go to actual BLM groups or others. It all made reference to promoting the page itself, and "publicizing stories the mainstream media won't" and other stuff. But nowhere did any of the donation stuff say things like "taking your donations to the streets" or "fighting on the front-lines of racial blah blah...". It was all just genereic stuff about the page itself or about the stuff featured on the page. And if the guy also kept some money for himself to compensate for the time invested in running the page, that all seems pretty legit to me. If he kept it all, then pretty low, but as long as he claimed it on his taxes, nothing really illegal that I can see.
So, why are people pissed?
Is it because he's a Australian? I know for a fact that there is zero black/white racial inequality in Australia, so I can't believe a white australian would ever have a dog in this fight.
Is it because he's white? White people can't fundraise and promote civil rights?
If you give your money to an organization that you haven't fully vetted, then you're a moron. But if you do give money to some group, and the group is doing exactly what you thought they would with the money, but you don't like the fact that the guy running the thing is white instead of black, that makes you a racist *******.
I once had an Australian cop in Perth explain to me that aboriginals have a genetic disposition towards being alcoholics, and it makes them lazy a burden on Australian society.
I'm not saying that indicates systemic enequality, but it made me curious about how prevalent that idea was.
Alcoholism is a major burden on the Australian health care system (amongst other things). Proportionally, alcoholism is a bigger problem in the Aboriginal population. Alcohol was introduced by the white man, AFAIK no aboriginal peoples had alcohol prior to settlement. So, 30-40,000 years of living without it, and 200 years after its introduction it is little surprise that it has been highly destructive. Add in dispossession, disenfranchisement, European diseases, etc etc and the end result is that by probably any standard you care to name, the aboriginal population performs radically poorer than the white population.
Genetic predisposition? Dunno, but certainly a cultural/social no mans land, with no rules/customs/social expectations to help them handle it.
When the Brits arrived, they brought the 'terra nullius' (sp?) doctrine with them - empty land, nobody owned it. That had a big bearing on how the locals were treated, as you could imagine. That was only rectified with a 1992 High Court decision (the Mabo case), which belatedly created a right to 'native title' to land. The Constitution did not allow aborigines to vote, that was only changed in 1967.
To answer your question, there is an undercurrent of racism here, less overt than it used to be. Not surprising, as we are culture that has grown up for 200 years with the notion that we colonised a land with inhabitants that had no rights or entitlements despite being the oldest culture on the planet. It also makes it easier to look away from the evident problems confronting them.
I once had an Australian cop in Perth explain to me that aboriginals have a genetic disposition towards being alcoholics, and it makes them lazy a burden on Australian society.
I'm not saying that indicates systemic enequality, but it made me curious about how prevalent that idea was.
I'd suggest that most Aussies are completely frustrated with Aboriginals more than anything.
Essentially the Aboriginals were hunter-gatherer people that lived in small family groups, they hadn't developed into a farming culture and never even created man-made dwellings.
In Australian slang, if someone brings their whole immediate family to an event, you'll often hear the expression "Brought the whole tribe!" - this derived from the idea of a typical Aboriginal tribe and is considered friendly banter, it's in no way derogatory.
In Australia there was no native farm-able crops (apart from macadamia nuts which were only realised as being farmable by Americans from Hawaii) and the aboriginals had little interaction with other people that did have farmable crops.
Then along comes "The White-Fella" with his civilisation that's competely alien to aboriginals and "The White-Fella" proceeds to settle the land in "The White-Fella way" and tells the Aboriginals that that's how they too must live.
After 200 years, the Aboriginals still have not largely merged into "The White-Fella's" way of life, few have permanent jobs and the majority live on welfare from the Australian government.
The term "Gone Walkabout" comes from aborigines, it's not uncommon for one of them to simply disappear for long periods of time without telling anyone and turning up again as if nothing had happened or no time has passed.
While I never liked Julia Gillard, a much despised ex-PM, she publicly stated what many of us Aussies believe, something along the lines of "The ~80 billion dollars spent on Aboriginals to date has been a complete waste of money, we've got very little to show for it!".
I don't know what the solution to the Aboriginal problem is here in Australia, but I do know that blindly throwing money at them will never change the status quo.
It really irks me that many think they're entitled to welfare and will never even need to try and find employment.
Regarding alcohol: Aborigines tend to get get drunk very quickly and the effects last longer than on a "White Fella" (I suspect this is a genetic tolerance issue since prior to "The White-Fella", alcohol was unknown to them so their bodies haven't had time to develop the required tolerance) - they tend to get aggressive/violent when drunk too which is when most of the problems really start.
I lived at Ceduna in South Australia as a kid which was a small coastal town of around 2,000 people consisting of about 30% Aboriginals.
Our school's deputy Head Master spent most of his days in the scrub around the school-grounds bringing in the truant aboriginal kids (who get paid to go to school) - I actually think he liked getting out schoolyard.
Despite being such a small town, Ceduna had the same sized police force as Port Lincoln, a town of ~20,000 people back then.
Even today, Ceduna still needs a large police force to deal with Aboriginal violence.
Sen. Cruz started by asking if Facebook considers itself to be a “neutral public forum.” This was third on Breitbart News’ list of recommended questions published earlier today, and Cruz has used the question to put social media companies on the spot before.
Zuckerberg avoided giving Cruz a direct yes-or-no answer, despite the Senator asking numerous times.“We consider ourselves to be a platform for all ideas” said Zuckerberg.
“Are you a First Amendment speaker expressing your views, or are you a neutral public forum allowing everyone to speak?” pressed Cruz.Zuckerberg went on to list some of the things that are banned from the platform, including “hate speech, terrorist content, nudity” and “anything that makes people feel unsafe in the community.”
Accusing Facebook of giving “conflicting answers” on whether they are a neutral public forum, Cruz went on to outline voters’ concerns about political censorship.
“There are a great many Americans who I think are deeply concerned that Facebook and other tech companies are engaged in a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship.”
Cruz went on to cite the trending news scandal of 2016, in which it was reported that Facebook “routinely suppressed” conservative stories from its Trending News feature.“In addition to that, Facebook has initially shut down the ‘Chick-fil-A appreciation day page,’ has blocked the post of a Fox News reporter, has blocked over two dozen Catholic pages, and most recently has blocked the Trump supporters Diamond & Silk’s page – with 1.2 million Facebook followers – after determining that their content and brand were ‘unsafe for the community’.”In response, Zuckerberg said concerns over political bias were “fair,” and conceded that Silicon Valley is an “extremely left-leaning place.”
Zuckerberg said that he aimed to “root [bias] out at the company” and make sure that “we don’t have any bias in the work that we do.”
Pressed by Cruz, Zuckerberg also conceded that he did not know the political orientation of the “15-20,000 people” who work on content review at Facebook.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday confirmed that Facebook is working with the special counsel investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election and potential collusion with the Trump campaign.
Hey liberals, I have no bias against you, I just think you're unsafe to the community.
TL;DR: Braineack hates Mark Zuckerberg, because that's trendy in the "I'm a government employee, but the government is evil" circle right now.
no, I'm annoyed because my facebook feed is constantly full of ads and old posts from 2-3 days ago. The few pages I follow, don't show up on my feed anymore and I have to go to each manually one-by-one, because they are unsafe for my eyes and because censorship gives you a boner.
and when I check facebook, even though I KNOW new updates from my followed pages have posted something new, I get this:
That's after only 17 items on my FB feed. (5) of them are ads.
I mean, holy ****! Powder AND bulk solids?! How have I been missing this my whole life?
Clearly you were searching with the words "powder" and "bulk" in your query not long before that.
So you are either trying to bulk up with some powder protein shake or you are trying to figure out how to ship some type of powder in bulk. Being you're a Hispanic like myself, I'm with with the latter.
Clearly you were searching with the words "powder" and "bulk" in your query not long before that.
So you are either trying to bulk up with some powder protein shake or you are trying to figure out how to ship some type of powder in bulk. Being you're a Hispanic like myself, I'm with with the latter.
I am not Hispanic, but I might I do know a guy in the Key's who lives on an air strip. He might be able to help you two with moving bulk powder.
I don't know what the solution to the Aboriginal problem is here in Australia, but I do know that blindly throwing money at them will never change the status quo.
It really irks me that many think they're entitled to welfare and will never even need to try and find employment.
Can't believe I ever took you for a leftist. Welcome to the Tea Party! You should come here and run for office.
Can't believe I ever took you for a leftist. Welcome to the Tea Party! You should come here and run for office.
Even if I still want to "take away your guns"?
I lived in Sweden for 14 months and came away quite impressed with their socialist policies.
Yes taxes are high, but education, health and aged care is free and the people work hard for it because they know it's for their benefit.
Sweden has a very large middle-class and small population reliant on welfare which is what every country wants.
I don't mind being called a "Leftist" since I'm a fan of socialism but I can't tolerate bludgers and don't believe they should simply be given permanent welfare for doing nothing.
04-10-2018, 03:08 PM
0
