Facebook “Celebrate Pride” Rainbow Filter a Psychological Experiment

 Written by    

rainbow filter

After the Supreme Court overstepped its constitutional boundaries and overruled state laws and even state constitutions by legalizing same-sex marriage, millions of Facebook users took advantage of a tool that the site made available to filter their profile picture with rainbow hues. It now looks as if Facebook’s “Celebrate Pride” tool was a social/psychological experiment with more than 26 million unwitting subjects.

In the past, “gay pride” Facebook users have demonstrated their support of the homosexual agenda in a variety of ways. There have been the silhouettes that look like the signs on restroom doors but show two male figures (or two female figures) holding hands, simple rainbow squares, a variety of equals signs, and a myriad other symbols of “gay pride” that they could use as their profile pictures or cover photos. Not one of those options was created by Facebook. This time was different. This time Facebook created a rainbow filter which made it easier and more uniform.

The “Celebrate Pride” tool — which was launched by the social media giant almost immediately after the Supreme Court issued its ruling on same-sex marriage in typical 5-4 fashion — became the overwhelming symbol of choice for those Facebook users who wanted to demonstrate their elation over the decision. The result was that nearly all the profile pictures which show support for the unconstitutional decision are the product of the “Celebrate Pride” filter.

Facebook has denied that the filtering tool is an experiment of any type, claiming that is is merely a way for its users to show their support for the court’s decision. But there are reasons to doubt the sincerity of the company’s denial.

This would certainly not be the first time Facebook experimented on its users.

Reporting on this most recent example, The Atlantic pointed out that in June of 2014, “Facebook manipulated what users saw when they logged into the site as a way to study how it would affect their moods.” This was accomplished by creating what were essentially “test groups” and filtering their timelines to show some groups only positive posts from their friends while showing other groups only negative posts from their friends. Facebook then monitored the “mood” that each user selected from the drop-down menu when making a post of their own.

And in September of 2012, the National Institutes of Health reported the findings of a Facebook experiment on manipulating the way people voted in the 2010 congressional elections. The results of that study claim that by filtering the political posts and ads that were shown to Facebook users, and monitoring the websites those users visited after seeing those posts and ads, the Internet giant was able to steer users to a particular point of view and influence their voting patterns.

Setting aside the merely circumstantial evidence, perhaps the greatest reason to disbelieve Facebook’s denial in this case is a paper written on the subject that was co-authored by a data scientist at Facebook itself. The paper, published by Facebook in March of this year, discusses the fact that in March of 2013, three million Facebook users changed their profile picture to an “equals” sign and that Facebook looked at the metrics of those users to determine the reasoning behind that change. The report examines the fact that the main dynamics impacting whether users adopted the equals sign as their profile picture were how many of their friends had already done so, the demographics of the users, and how often those users typically change their profile pictures. The report concluded that “the probability of adoption [of the equals sign as a profile picture] depends on both the number of friends and the susceptibility of the individual.”

It seems that Facebook decided to take this experiment to the next level to see whether “the susceptibility of the individual” could be altered. Considering that the number of users who adopted a “gay pride” profile picture went from three million in March of 2013 to more than 26 million once Facebook standardized the method for doing so and put the Facebook stamp of approval on it in June 2015, it seems the answer is yes.

Of course it is no surprise that Facebook is supportive of the homosexual agenda, but the release of this particular tool seems to be at least equally geared toward the company’s own agenda: performing experiments on users to determine how well Facebook (as a company) influences the way Facebook (as a social media site) is used, and the way that use shapes the conversation.

The experiment is almost certain to allow Mark Zuckerburg’s empire to better manipulate the way issues are discussed — and to garner huge profits while doing so.

Read more: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/21233-facebook-celebrate-pride-rainbow-filter-a-psychological-experiment

Tags: , ,

Obama’s Unconstitutional Schemes to Nationalize Police

 

Written by 

Obama’s Unconstitutional Schemes to Nationalize Police

 

Efforts to nationalize state and local police forces across America go back decades, but the Obama administration has accelerated that push and is now openly working to turn your local cops into extensions of federal power. In addition to being unconstitutional, this is an absolutely terrible idea for a number of reasons.

First, let’s talk about Obama’s scheming on this front. Before openly complaining about the militarization of police, Obama was militarizing American police departments at an unprecedented rate. At the same time he was attacking the rights of Americans with slogans like “weapons of war don’t belong on our streets,” he was flooding our streets with actual weapons of war — tanks, armored personnel carriers, grenade launchers, and more to local police.   

After the unrest in Ferguson, much of which was fueled by Obama ally and financier George Soros and his billions according to an in-depth investigation by the Washington Times, Obama started complaining about the very militarization his administration was engaged in. Using an executive order, Obama then created what he called the “Task Force on 21st Century Policing” to “study” the issue. What do you think his task force said? Surprise! We need to nationalize the police.

Obama’s Unconstitutional Schemes to Nationalize Police 

(View more videos from The New American.)

Of course, they didn’t use the word nationalize or federalize, probably because Americans would have quite properly recoiled in horror. Instead, his committee claimed we need federal “standards” for police. During the Ferguson fiasco, UN boss Ban Ki Moon even demanded that the city police obey what he termed “international standards.”

Just like administration’s nationalizing of education with Common Core was imposed by federal bribes to our states, the taskforce proposed bribing our local police departments with “grants” if they would submit to Obama’s national standards. Critics ridiculed the plan to create ObamaCops as “Common Core for police,” but this is no joking matter.

In March of 2015, the Obama administration announced that it had chosen six “pilot cities” to test out some of the nationalization scheming. The radical plan was dubbed the “National Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice.” In a nut shell, it is using U.S. taxpayer dollars to deploy so-called “experts” and “researchers” charged with training officers to act in a manner that the Obama administration deems just — in essence doing the bidding of the Obama administration. Officially, the Justice Department is helping local officials to “fight crime,” too.

The first cities being targeted are Birmingham, Alabama; Fort Worth, Texas; Gary, Indiana; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Stockton, California. But they’re not planning to stop there, you can be sure of that.

In May, Obama approved another one of his taskforce’s recommendations, and pretended to “ban” handouts of military gear from the feds to our local police. This was blatant deception though. What he really did was say that local and state police will only get certain military equipment if they agree to federal policing standards.

The riots in Baltimore only poured fuel on the fire, with Obama’s close allies like race-monger Al Sharpton demanding that the Justice Department just nationalize all police.

But nationalizing the police is a terrible idea — and history shows it is extraordinarily dangerous. First of all, if local communities are having trouble keeping their police departments in line, which is what Obama is arguing, how is transferring that control to D.C., which more than two thirds of Americans in polls say is out of control and a threat to liberty, going to remedy that? It won’t — it will only make real and imagined problems much worse.

Beyond that, though, is the danger of centralizing power. When you think of national police forces, what do you think of? If you’re like most people, the Soviet KGB, the National Socialist SS, or the East German Stasi probably come to mind. If power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, what do you think will happen when D.C. has absolute power over your local police department? Nothing good, that’s for sure.

If we want to maintain our freedoms, we need to support our local police and keep them independent. The alternative — so-called ObamaCops patrolling our streets following dictates from D.C. — will almost certainly lead to disaster.            

Get involved in your local area, and make sure your state and local government do not accept bribes from the Obama administration to surrender your community’s ability to govern itself and run its own police department.

Photo: AP Images

SYLP-banner

Tags: