DISCLAIMER: Scott has been interviewed by government law enforcement and regulatory agencies, on an on-going basis, about Facebook’s corruption, social damages and interference and misdeeds. Additionally, in federal hearings, the Patent Office found that Scott had invented social media years before Mark Zuckerberg had even gone to school. Facebook then lobbied, using Facebook staff who work IN THE U.S. PATENT OFFICE, to blockade Scott’s latest patents on social media so Scott filed FTC charges against Facebook. Facebook – Google – Instagram – YouTube, Tesla, et al, are all the SAME lawyers, CPA’s, lobbyists, i-bank, political operatives, VC’s and insiders meeting the DOJ legal definition of a “Cartel” or “Enterprise”.


(REVIEW) Facebook’s Pathetic Meta VR Universe Is A Sad 1990’s Rip-Off Of The Oldest Version Of Minecraft

Mark Zuckerberg had to quickly distract people from the fact that everyone has realized that Facebook is a lying, propaganda-based spy service for political bosses.

He had blown a bunch of cash on cheap VR headsets so he decided that Facebook would become a “VR Company” because spying on you inside of games might not be as obvious as spying on you in your digital diary. His VR switcheroo is just a smoke-screen to hide the fact that a zillion federal and civil lawsuits are crawling up his butt.


The sad little Horizon Worlds VR Metaverse that Facebook has popped out gives users a glimpse of what you can expect. You have to be over 18 because of all of the rape, groping, cussing and lynchings in Fecesbook’s delightful little romp. You also have to throw away your old Facebook Oculus Quest and buy a whole new one that can spy on you, the room you are in and your words EVEN MORE. Fun! Huh?



The graphics of the game seem to have been done by a 15 year old beginner programmer, decades ago. The cartoon like images and the fact that Facebook political monitors are recording everything you do, and everything that the external camera’s see, make it extra horrifying.

So far, in Facebook Meta’s ‘Metaverse’, thousands of children have been raped, assualted, abused and damaged. Zuckerberg either A.) has no idea what he is doing or, B.) he and his executives know EXACTLY what they are doing to the naive and innocent on his network. Which do YOU think it is?

Tech Giants Giving Up Data Used to Sexually Extort Minors because big Tech is all perverts...

Yes, Facebook can see all of the piles of laundry in your bedroom and hear your Mom yell at you from the kitchen to “go outside and get some fresh air”. Now, hundreds of users encircle a target in Facebook’s VR (Mostly Mark Zuckerberg’s avatar) and stroke their sausages at him in mass jerk sessions.

FACEBOOK Doesn't Know What It Does With Your Data, Or Where It Goes?


FACEBOOK faceplant on Wall St is just the beginning for tech stocks big FINAL CRASH as Silicon Valley destroys itself…

The fake pre-produced trailers for the game were stunning but the real thing does not even remotely, live up to expectations. The massively underwhelming thing that the Zuck Bucks paid for is nothing any kid is going to play. It is nothing any adult would care about.


Meta, which ignored creators for years, has only “shameless” creators and their awful content to fall back on in its pivot to video and eventual irrelevance  —  Read to the end for a tremendous meditation on February  —  Facebook Made Its Own World And Now It’s Stuck In It….

Zuck thinks he can buy creativity and innovation because he has so much money but all he can buy with his money are politicians. I looked at this with high-end VR headsets and the high resolution just shows how bad a job Facebook did. It was rushed out, with bad QA, via input from Facebook insiders that have no clue what VR is. Maybe the Facebook staff were too busy with other things: ie:

Facebook’s Meta Verse simply SUCKS BALLS! Every other gaming company has come out with a thousand times better VR environment. If the VR game Alyx is a 10 on the game scale then Facebook’s META-Verse is a MINUS 9.

YOU the Public have to stand up and demand an end to corruption like this:

Facebook and Google Have ‘Secret Deal’ To Carve Up Ad Empire, Election Manipulation And Venture Capital Market


Ariel Zilber

Facebook Doesn’t Know What It Does With Your Data, Or Where It Goes: Leaked Document

“We do not have an adequate level of control and explainability over how our systems use data,” Facebook engineers say in leaked document.

Facebook is facing what it describes internally as a “tsunami” of privacy regulations all over the world, which will force the company to dramatically change how it deals with users’ personal data. And the “fundamental” problem, the company admits, is that Facebook has no idea where all of its user data goes, or what it’s doing with it, according to a leaked internal document obtained by Motherboard.

“We’ve built systems with open borders. The result of these open systems and open culture is well described with an analogy: Imagine you hold a bottle of ink in your hand. This bottle of ink is a mixture of all kinds of user data (3PD, 1PD, SCD, Europe, etc.) You pour that ink into a lake of water (our open data systems; our open culture) … and it flows … everywhere,” the document read. “How do you put that ink back in the bottle? How do you organize it again, such that it only flows to the allowed places in the lake?”

(3PD means third-party data; 1PD means first-party data; SCD means sensitive categories data.)

“We can’t confidently make controlled policy changes or external commitments such as ‘we will not use X data for Y purpose.’ And yet, this is exactly what regulators expect us to do”

The document was written last year by Facebook privacy engineers on the Ad and Business Product team, whose mission is “to make meaningful connections between people and businesses,” and which “sits at the center of our monetization strategy and is the engine that powers Facebook’s growth,” according to a recent job listing that describes the team. 

This is the team that is tasked with building and maintaining Facebook’s sprawling ads system, the core of the company’s business. And in this document, the team is both sounding an alarm, and making a call to change how Facebook deals with users’ data to prevent the company from running into trouble with regulators in Europe, the US, India, and other countries that are pushing for more stringent privacy constraints on social media companies. 

“We do not have an adequate level of control and explainability over how our systems use data, and thus we can’t confidently make controlled policy changes or external commitments such as ‘we will not use X data for Y purpose.’ And yet, this is exactly what regulators expect us to do, increasing our risk of mistakes and misrepresentation,” the document read. (Motherboard retyped the document from scratch to protect a source.) 

In other words, even Facebook’s own engineers admit that they are struggling to make sense and keep track of where user data goes once it’s inside Facebook’s systems, according to the document. This problem inside Facebook is known as “data lineage.”

In the last few years, regulators all over the world have tried to limit how platforms like Facebook can use their own users’ data. One of the most notable and significant regulations is the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which went into effect in May 2018. In its article 5, the law mandates that personal data must be “collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes.” 

What that means is that every piece of data, such as a user’s location, or religious orientation, can only be collected and used for a specific purpose, and not reused for another purpose. For example, in the past Facebook took the phone number that users’ provided to protect their accounts with two-factor authentication and fed it to its “people you may know” feature, as well as to advertisers. Gizmodo, with the help of academic researchers, caught Facebook doing this, and eventually the company had to stop the practice

According to legal experts interviewed by Motherboard, GDPR specifically prohibits that kind of repurposing, and the leaked document shows Facebook may not even have the ability to limit how it handles users’ data. The document raises the question of whether Facebook is able to broadly comply with privacy regulations because of the sheer amount of data it collects and where it flows within the company. 

A Facebook spokesperson denied that the document shows the company is not complying with privacy regulations. 

“Considering this document does not describe our extensive processes and controls to comply with privacy regulations, it’s simply inaccurate to conclude that it demonstrates non-compliance. New privacy regulations across the globe introduce different requirements and this document reflects the technical solutions we are building to scale the current measures we have in place to manage data and meet our obligations,” the spokesperson said in a statement sent via email. 

In regards to the ink in a lake analogy, the spokesperson said “this analogy lacks the context that we do, in fact, have extensive processes and controls to manage data and comply with privacy regulations.”

Do you have more information about how Facebook handles user data? You can contact Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai securely on Signal at +1 917 257 1382, Wickr/Telegram/Wire @lorenzofb, or email lorenzofb@vice.com

A former Facebook employee, who asked to remain anonymous to avoid retaliation, reviewed the document for Motherboard and called it “blunt.”

“Facebook has a general idea of how many bits of data are stored in its data centers,” he said in an online chat. “The where [the data] goes part is, broadly speaking, a complete shitshow.”

“It is a damning admission, but also offers Facebook legal cover because of how much it would cost Facebook to fix this mess,” he added. “It gives them the excuse for keeping that much private data simply because at their scale and with their business model and infrastructure design they can plausibly claim that they don’t know what they have.”

“The where [the data] goes part is, broadly speaking, a complete shitshow.”

Privacy experts who have been fighting against Facebook in an attempt to limit how the company uses private data say they believe the document is an admission that it cannot comply with regulations.

“This document admits what we long suspected: that there is a data free-for-all inside Facebook, and that the company has no control whatsoever over the data it holds,” Johnny Ryan, a privacy activist and senior fellow at the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, told Motherboard in an online chat. “It is a black and white recognition of the absence of any data protection. Facebook details how it breaks each principle of data protection law. Everything it does to our data is illegal. You’re not allowed to have an internal data free-for-all.”

Facebook also made two employees available to discuss how it handles data internally. In the call, company representatives told Motherboard that Facebook is trying to get ahead of more privacy laws and building infrastructure to meet the requirements it may face. That means investing in tools that make analyzing user data and figuring out where it can or cannot go more automated, and less reliant on humans being involved in the process, as it is today. The representatives said that to get to that point there will need to be significant investments, but that this is a priority for the company. They also said that Facebook at this point does not have technical control over every piece of data. But it already has some mechanism to manage user data such as an opt out flag that goes along with data that the user has opted out of using for advertising, and that follows the data making it clear it can’t be used for certain purposes, they said. 

Screen Shot 2022-04-25 at 3.52.34 PM.png

A representation of Facebook’s “data lake,” created by Facebook’s engineers.

Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next, a trade organization that represents journalism publishers and an outspoken critic of Facebook, said that “consumers and regulators would and should be shocked at the magnitude and disorder of the data inside of Facebook’s systems.”

Kint said the ink in the lake metaphor shows that Facebook can’t keep track of the “source and purpose” of the user data it collects. Kint is referring to GDPR’s article 5, which sets a principle known as “purpose limitation.” 

This principle, according to Ryan, means companies like Facebook need to be able to tell users and regulators what they are doing with every specific piece of data and the specific reason they are collecting it. For example, if you provide your religious orientation for your Facebook bio, that shouldn’t be used to target you with ads. 

The principle of purpose limitation was created to protect people’s privacy. In 2020, Ryan sued Google in Ireland, accusing the tech giant of violating this principle with its “several hundred processing purposes that are conflated in a vast, internal data free-for-all.”

Ravi Naik, Ryan’s lawyer in that case and a privacy expert himself, told Motherboard that if regulators consider Facebook in violation of GDPR, the company could not only face administrative fines of up to 4 percent of its global revenue, but also open the door for the regulators to order the company to stop processing data in a certain way. Individual users could also sue Facebook requesting to tell them what it does with their data, like Naik and Ryan are doing with Google. 

The leaked document also refers to a new, unreleased, product called “Basic Ads,” which the document authors refer to as a “short term” response to requirements of regulations around the world. 

“When launched, Facebook users will be able to ‘opt-out’ from having almost all of their 3P [third party] and 1P [first party] data used by Ads systems – page likes, posts, friends list, etc,” the document reads.

The document said that Basic Ads “needs to be launch-ready in Europe by January, 2020.” 

As of this writing, Facebook has yet to launch Basic Ads, showing that the company is late to the deadline its own employees established.

Facebook declined to comment on basic ads. 

Company representatives said that the name is an internal codename, and that the product will show that Facebook can build advertising that is relevant to users while preserving their privacy.


More On: facebook

Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg and his counterpart at Google, CEO Sundar Pichai, secretly struck a deal in 2018 to carve up the digital advertising market between the two tech giants, according to newly revealed allegations from top state law-enforcement officials.

Previously, it was reported that the deal was signed by Zuckerberg’s No. 2, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, who moved over to the social network after a stint heading up Google’s online ad sales team, according to the allegations in a lawsuit by a group of state attorneys general.

But according to newly unredacted court filings, Zuckerberg and Pichai also signed off on the backroom deal in 2018, which allegedly guaranteed Meta subsidiary Facebook would both bid in — and win — a fixed percentage of ad auctions, according to court papers.

The original complaint had alleged that Google reached out Facebook after the social media company emerged as a powerful online ad rival in 2017. The two tech behemoths then allegedly struck “an unlawful agreement” to give Facebook“information, speed, and other advantages” in the ad auctions it ran in exchange for the social network backing down from its competitive threats.

The newly revised, unredacted version of the lawsuit, which was refiled on Friday, also specifically alleges that Sandberg helped negotiate the agreement before bringing it to Zuckerberg, who approved the deal. Sandberg is said to have lobbied her boss to okay the agreement, calling it a “big deal strategically.”

“We’re nearly ready to sign and need your approval to move forward,” Sandberg and her team told Zuckerberg in an email cited by the complaint.


While the names of Zuckerberg and Sandberg are redacted, their titles are not.

“Facebook CEO [REDACTED] wanted to meet with COO [REDACTED] and his other executives before making a decision,” says the complaint.

The September 2018 agreement between Google and Facebook allegedly bears the signatures of Sandberg and a Google senior vice president.

“Google CEO Sundar Pichai also personally signed off on the terms of the deal,” according to the lawsuit.

see also


Facebook faces $3.1 billion class-action lawsuit in UK

The states updated the original complaint in November. The revised version included many redactions. But a federal judge in New York ordered the states to undo most of the redactions, saying that it was in the public interest to have the information revealed.

The newly unredacted suit also claims that Google duped publishers and advertisers for years about how it prices and executes its ad auctions, creating secret algorithms that hiked prices for buyers while deflating revenue for some advertisers.

Likewise, Google used the extra cash it got from inflated ad prices to improperly expand its monopoly, according to the complaint,which cites internal correspondence from Google employees. Some Google workers said the practices amounted to using “insider information” to grow the business, according to the suit.

The allegations were made by the attorneys general for Texas, 14 other states,and Puerto Rico, who are suing Google in federal court for antitrust violations. Facebook and its parent company, Meta Platforms are not YET defendants in the lawsuit.

In December 2020, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton took the lead in filing a lawsuit against Google, accusing it of using anti-competitive means to gain dominance over the digital ad space.

The Post has reached out to Alphabet-owned Google as well as Meta Platforms for comment.

Both companies earlier denied to Politico that the arrangement was illegal.

SOPA Images/LightRocket via Gett

“Our advertising technologies help websites and apps fund their content, and enable small businesses to reach customers around the world.”

“There is vigorous competition in online advertising, which has reduced ad tech fees, and expanded options for publishers and advertisers.”

Meta Platforms, Inc. also released a statement defending the arrangement with Google.

“Meta’s non-exclusive bidding agreement with Google and the similar agreements we have with other bidding platforms, have helped to increase competition for ad placements,” Meta spokesperson Christopher Sgro said.

“These business relationships enable Meta to deliver more value to advertisers while fairly compensating publishers, resulting in better outcomes for all.”

SOPA Images/LightRocket via Gett

The original December 2020 lawsuit was filed at around the same time that the Department of Justice submitted its own antitrust complaint against Google. The DOJ claimed Google has long broken the law in its quest to remain“the gateway to the internet,” and has disadvantaged competitors in an effort to sell more online search ads.

Last month, more than 200 newspapers filed suit against Facebook and Google, who were accused of unfairly manipulating the advertising market and siphoning away their revenue.

Both Facebook and Google face legal challenges from regulators who allege that they have grown too powerful in the tech space by gaining an unfair advantage over other companies.

Earlier this week, the Federal Trade Commission was allowed to proceed with a lawsuit against Facebook after a judge rejected the company’s request to throw out claims that it is a monopoly.

In June, New York State, Tennessee, Utah, and North Carolina banded together to file an antitrust lawsuit against Google over its management of its mobile app store.

Foreign governments also have the two tech firms in their sights.

Earlier this month, French regulators imposed fines totaling $238 million on Google and Facebook for allegedly violating European privacy laws by not allowing users the chance to reject data-tracking cookies.

Filed under

By comparing records and files from FINCEN, FBI, FTC, SEC, Congressional Investigators, ICIJ, FEC, DOJ, ProPublica, and other sources, one can easily see that political officials own Google, Tesla, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, et al, (AKA “The Tech Cartel” or, in legal terms: “The Enterprise”). This explains why those companies have been exempt from regulation and prosecution. Those public officials and tech company oligarchs have exchanged millions, and millions, of dollars between themselves and their families for profiteering.

They were all either financed by, friends, with, sleeping with, dating the staff of, holding stock market assets in, promised a revolving door job or government service contracts from, partying with, personal friends with, photographed at private events with, exchanging emails with, business associates of or directed by; our business adversaries, or the Senators and politicians that those business adversaries pay campaign finances to, or supply political digital search manipulation services to. Criminal U.S. Senators coordinated and profited in these schemes. Their own family members have now supplied evidence against them. You don’t hear about this, much, in the “main-stream news” because nearly half of Congress, White House staff and government agency bosses own the stock in the news broadcasters and receive billions of dollars of financing from them.

Many witnesses, including us, have now sworn, warranted and certified to federal law enforcement about the details of these crimes. Many of those whistle-blowers were former executives in “The Tech Cartel’.

This is not about politics. It is about felony crimes! Our government representatives are business partners with our biggest enemies and make decisions based on greed, not duty!