Facebook to Replace Churches… With Surveillance

In January of 2017 Facebook announced a “pledge” to visit 50 states of America in person “to learn how people live“.

It sounds like an unintentional self-own — a thorough condemnation of Facebook — by saying software doesn’t work at all and physical contact is the best way to learn.

In other words a social behavior platform is so utterly disconnected from reality of how people live its CEO has to announce a better way is to visit people in order to learn from them?

It doesn’t make sense at all because… it’s a lie.

Facebook’s CEO wasn’t really taking a step outside his high-security anti-social guarded compound to visit actual people to understand real social behavior.

Nope.

He was clumsily hinting at a plan to conquer and displace leadership in a new target/expansion area: Replace Church (e.g. use centralized tactics to draw people away from their local faith and community and towards worship/like of Facebook-controlled groups instead).

A local community-based faith in God is seen as competition by the CEO of Facebook, who since his Harvard student days has openly sought ways to manipulate the public into giving him control over their “likes”.

There was foreshadowing, to be fair, from the sort of enlightened place you may expect.

Howard University pulled the alarm way back in 2011, when Ronald Hopson (associate professor of psychology and divinity) signaled “Facebook Can’t Replace Church”.

As long as we are sentient beings, we will require direct contact as a principal mode of interaction. […] Electronic bits may prove inadequate to convey the same rich experience of encounter. Ultimately, virtual gatherings will not be enough.

Ok now fast-forward from that early 2017 “pledge” and notice headlines from local religious leaders reflecting on the awkward in-person visit from Facebook’s leader.

Zuckerberg himself started admitting Churches were foremost on his chopping-block, using extremely ignorant and tone-deaf logic to boot.

“A church doesn’t just come together by itself,” Zuckerberg said. “It has a pastor who looks out for the well-being of the congregation. And if someone hits hard times, they’re in charge of making sure that people have the food and shelter they need. A Little League team has a coach who motivates the kids and helps teach them how to hit better. Leaders set the culture, they inspire us, they motivate us, they give us a safety net and they take care of us.” Zuckerberg said Facebook’s artificial intelligence algorithm can power the website to more effectively organize online communities…

I could probably write a whole book about why the Facebook CEO is so egregiously wrong (and technically I am), but let me just point out some high-level failures that make him sound so evil:

  1. A church absolutely can form BY ITSELF and not owe itself to one individual. I can’t believe I have to say this. The definition of church is literally a gathering of people who share faith, almost like an instinct to get together for safety. So right off the bat the Facebook argument is a bunch of self-serving disinformation.
  2. The etymology of “pastor” (considered a leader in some Protestant Churches, not to be confused with Al Pastor) is someone who cares for a flock of sheep. Do sheep flock if they don’t have a pastor? Duh. Of course they do. “Sheep have a strong flocking instinct. They feel safer when gathered together.”
  3. More importantly, if a flock has a leader what would disrupt this status? I mean can a pastor be “unholy” for example? NO, by definition a pastor must be selfless and devoted to service a greater good. (e.g. Facebook could NEVER take the role of a pastor because by definition they are entirely selfish). The true pastor keeps patience while blameless (remains holy), whereas Facebook tells everyone to “fail faster” and act irresponsibly (sins excessively) — two literal opposite ends in morality.
  4. From there you hopefully can see the giant misstep in Zuckerberg saying “they’re in charge of making sure that people have the food and shelter they need” as if a pastor is supposed to control “needs” from his bank account with special contractors on speed-dial to build compounds… as if some kind of Koresh cult.
  5. Indeed, notice how the list of “leader” qualities has things like “set the culture” and “take care of us”. Instead of the normal “teach a man to fish” line that most real leaders would recognize, this is like reading evil leadership tips like “if you give a man a fish you can inspire and motivate him to do what you want”.

This is on top of the fact that Zuckerberg equates a decline in Church membership to a lack of “sense of purpose and community”.

That’s just wrong. So wrong.

Consider for example that his own point — people leaving Church find a new sense of purpose and community elsewhere — completely contradicts himself.

If people leaving Church are the same thing as people having no sense of purpose and community, then Facebook can’t be the answer!

So I really don’t see all that much difference between Zuckerberg’s claim that he has a limited understanding how people really live, and his desire to be their “leader” by telling them how to live by falsely claiming to have a safety net in mind (while in fact trying to become a monopoly, like a cult they can’t escape from).

Zuckerberg has built little more than a big greed machine ignorant of history. Dostoyevsky wrote about this over 100 years ago in Brothers Karamazov, as Tweeted recently by Tom Simonite:

Some claim that the world is gradually becoming united, that it will grow into a brotherly community as distances shrink and ideas are transmitted through the air. Alas, you must not believe that men can be united in this way. To consider freedom as directly dependent on the number of man’s requirements and the extent of their immediate satisfaction shows a twisted understanding of human nature, for such an interpretation only breeds in men a multitude of senseless, stupid desires and habits and endless preposterous inventions. People are more and more moved by envy now, by the desire to satisfy their material greed and by vanity.

Oh, and in terms of leaders “taking care” of their flock when big data is involved?

Federal Bureau of Investigation files show that just over a year after L. Ron Hubbard created the the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation, a precursor to the Church of Scientology, he offered to become an informant for the Bureau, and provide the FBI with a list of its members and copies of their fingerprints.

Think in terms of Zuckerberg rushing in to attract people leaving Churches in the same way as Hubbard built his empire of weird cult behavior; create slavish fealty for profit while selling-out adherents on a constant surveillance platform.

The “learn how people live” operation from Facebook seems based on far more sinister intent than people realize. It will be unfortunate for anyone who really allows this CEO into their lives.

2017 BSidesLV: Hidden Hot Battle Lessons of Cold War

My presentation on machine learning security opened the Ground Truth track at the 2017 BSidesLV conference:

When: Tuesday, July 25, 11:00 – 11:30
Where: Tuscany, Las Vegas
Cost: Free (as always!)
Event Link: Hidden Hot Battle Lessons of Cold War: All Learning Models Have Flaws, Some Have Casualties

In a pursuit of realistic expectations for learning models can we better prepare for adversarial environments by examining failures in the field?

All models have flaws, given any usual menu of problems with learning; it is the rapidly increasing risk of a catastrophic-level failure that is making data /robustness/ a far more immediate concern.

This talk pulls forward surprising and obscured learning errors during the Cold War to give context to modern machine learning successes and how things quickly may fall apart in evolving domains with cyber conflict.

Copy of Presentation Slides: 2017BSidesLV.daviottenheimer.pdf (4 MB)

Full Presentation Video:

Prior BSides Presentations

The Real-life Wonder Woman: Miss Nieves Fernandez

Just 10 hours after the Pearl Harbor bombing of 7 December 1941, Japanese invaded the Philippines and ran into Captain Nieves Fernandez.

…she used her long knife to silently kill Japanese soldiers during the occupation of Leyte Island…. She commanded 110 native who killed more than 200 Japanese with knifes and shotguns made from sections of gas pipe.

Have you heard of her before? Did you realize she was the inspiration for the Wonder Woman comic book character?

As one American soldier in 1944 explained, after Captain Fernandez demonstrated her technique on him, she impressed easily…

I will now never be surprised again when a qixiannü (a Chinese goddess) tears apart a Japanese soldier barehanded

Source: Rare Historical Photos, Captain Nieves Fernandez shows to an American soldier how she used her long knife to silently kill Japanese soldiers during occupation, 1944.

The American propaganda machine in 1941 was well aware that the promotion of successful and strong women was essential to winning the war against fascism.

The question really becomes whether Americans could admit to taking the story of Fernandez on Leyte island to create a comic-book version of her, given such lethal and effective reputation of a Woman fighting against the enemy of America.

I believe the answer to be an easy and definite yes. The Japanese military certainly did their part to spread news about this woman’s outsized actions, as it was causing them all kinds of trouble, and Americans turned that news into an iconic image of female heroism.

This deceptively idyllic island turned notoriously dangerous for the invading Japanese troops due to… Fernandez.

Why would the Japanese amplify her story widely? They thought it would help stop her, by putting a massive bounty on her head.

Source: The Lewiston Daily Sun – Nov 3, 1944: “School-Ma’am Led Guerrillas on Leyte”

Again, just to emphasize what an average view of Tacloban, Leyte looks like relative to the “origin” story of the comic book character:

Source: Internet search for Tacloban, Leyte

Perhaps it should be no surprise then, given how US intelligence was picking up Japanese bemoaning a “wonder woman” in Leyte, that Americans started saying things like the “best way to fend off critics would be to create a female superhero”.

A fictional origin story of Wonder Woman comic generated its first cover in January 1942 (a month after Pearl Harbor as US propaganda went into overdrive).

Sadly and without explanation, not only was Fernandez never credited, a Harvard psychologist named Dr. William Moulton Marston was instead credited and he made her a “Greek Amazon” white woman from Paradise Island.


Update September 2020:

In a weird twist to the above real history a new film Wonder Woman 1984 has the American heroine battle an evil villain based on a real-life American con-man whose name rhymes with cancerous-lump:

Enter Maxwell Lord, a self-made mogul-slash-guru played as a sort of insidious mix of ’80s icons…. “Max is a dream-seller…. It’s this character who encompasses a component of the era which is, you know, ‘Get whatever want, however you can. You’re entitled to it!’ And at any cost, ultimately, which represents a huge part of our culture and this kind of unabashed — it’s greed, It’s f—ing greed, of course. But it’s also about ‘How do you be your best self? How do you win?’ So he’s definitely the face of that version of success.”

Photo: Warner Bros./DC. First introduced in 1987’s Justice League #1 and previously depicted on-screen in Smallville and Supergirl, Lord is generally depicted as a cunning and powerful businessman. In Wonder Woman 1984, he is the president of…a corporation that promises to give the people of America, according to the trailer, “everything [they] always wanted.”

Definitely a missed opportunity to cast Wonder Woman as a someone more like Fernandez who battles the racism and misogyny endemic to fascism, far more relevant and real than this basic corruption and greed narrative.


Update May 2021:

A new book called War and Resistance in the Philippines: 1942-1945, by historian James Kelly Morningstar, gives much more context to the significance of this guerrilla story, even suggesting it “brought down Japan”:

Filipino guerrillas waged a war that denied Japan its strategic goals, altered U.S. grand strategy and helped transform America’s greatest military defeat into Japan’s greatest military disaster. Their fight also laid the foundation for a free and independent nation vital to the post-war order.

This Day in History: 1886 Haymarket Affair

On this day in 1886 a Civil War veteran from Texas, Albert Richard Parsons, was falsely accused along with several others of a conspiracy to murder in Chicago, Illinois. By 1893 they were pardoned, yet it was too late to save them from being put to death by police. Why did the American justice system kill them?

Albert was only 13 years old when he volunteered serve in the Civil War for a Texas unit led by his brothers. First he served as infantry for his Confederate captain brother, next a cannoneer and finally cavalry for Confederate colonel William Henry Parsons.

After the “slave-holder rebellion” he joined had been defeated, Albert studied in college and joined “Radical Republicans” working in Central Texas on suffrage for the Freedmen (emancipated slaves); Albert helped register blacks to vote despite threats of violence and exploitation by white supremacists

Here you can see in a newspaper clipping how the KKK threatened to murder white Americans like Albert who enfranchised black votes:

Source: Encyclopedia of Alabama, 1 Sept 1868 Tuscaloosa Independent Monitor. The KKK threatened that March 4, 1869 — first day of rule by avowed racist presidential candidate Horatio Seymour — would bring widespread lynchings of white Americans (“scalawags” and “carpetbaggers”) if the losing candidate Seymour wasn’t planted into the White House. Instead the Presidency, taken in a landslide by Civil War hero and civil rights pioneer Ulysses S. Grant, destroyed the KKK.)

Albert then married (Lucy Parsons) and unable to stay in Texas due to violent threats, they traveled through the Midwest. They settled in Chicago in 1873. In his “auto-biography” published by Lucy he wrote…

I incurred thereby the hate and contumely of many of my former army comrades, neighbors, and the Ku Klux Klan. My political career was full of excitement and danger. I took the stump to vindicate my convictions.

Lucy and Albert Parsons

In April 1886 Chicago saw dozens of protests where people were calling for an eight-hour workday. Similar to his prior suffrage work to help the Freedmen, Albert stood up and spoke and wrote about industrial labor conditions as a major cause of unfair voter disenfranchisement.

On the 1st of May tens of thousands walked off their job for better working conditions. After more protests on May 3rd the police responded to a large group by shooting wildly at protesters they had called violent, killing at least one and injuring many others.

The following day on May 4th Albert spoke at a meeting in Haymarket Square and left.

Although Mayor Harrison had instructed the police to stay away by the end of that day hundreds of armed officers marched in and demanded protesters disperse. When a bomb exploded police again opened fire wildly into crowds. Many were killed (reportedly seven police and several protesters all were shot dead by police) as well as injured (sixty police, unrecorded numbers of protesters).

Prominent speakers and writers such as Albert then were charged with murder because protests could be violent, despite Albert not being there during the violence.

After an unfair trial most of the accused were sentenced to death. One died violently in prison, judged a suicide. Then Albert and three others were hanged in 1887.

Albert stood on the gallows and asked openly “Will I be allowed to speak, O men of America? Let me speak…” as the Sheriff opened trap doors to kill him before he could say more.

Two other men had asked and received commuted sentences.

Six years later, in 1893, the Illinois’ Governor Altgeld known for his “patriotic love of liberty” pardoned those convicted in the Haymarket Affair and called the unfair trial methods used a “menace to the Republic“.

Altgeld feared that when the law was bent to deprive immigrants of their civil liberties, it would later be bent to deprive native sons and daughters of theirs as well.

The City of Chicago Haymarket Memorial describes these events as “A Tragedy of International Significance“:

…those who organized and spoke at the meeting—and others who held unpopular political viewpoints—were arrested, unfairly tried and, in some cases, sentenced to death even though none could be tied to the bombing itself.

Police targeted and killed those who advocated for better quality of life and voting rights in poor and immigrant homes. Although Albert had survived having unpopular views in Texas, had opposed the KKK after the Civil War, in Chicago he found himself falsely accused of violence and sentenced to death by the police… for speaking out freely in America on behalf of others, becoming too successful and popular with his anti-racist views.