That's not from a Facebook server though, that's someone who scraped data from Facebook
Yeah, but "we weren't hacked, we left our database of private personal user information publicly accessible for anyone to scrape on purpose" is a weak defense IMO.
1. Until last week, Facebook's ad policies prohibited "false or misleading content"
Facebook quietly changed its policies last week and eliminated that language
Facebook tells me its policy is that Trump (and other political figures) CAN LIE IN PAID ADS
2. The new ad policy "prohibits ads that include claims debunked by third-party fact checkers"
So you would think that would prohibit political ads that are debunked
Nope.
Facebook tells me POLITICIANS ARE EXEMPT FROM FACT CHECKING
3. This came up when I noticed that Trump was running an ad on Facebook featuring a claim that was ruled false by two Facebook-approved third-party fact-checkers, @PolitiFact
and @factcheckdotorg
Facebook says this Trump ad DOES NOT VIOLATE ITS POLICIES
where on facebook does it claim that politicians are exempt from this?
I plan to copy that section and comment on all the ads I see pop up on my feed and let them know that I will under no circumstances purchase their product until this changes.
where on facebook does it claim that politicians are exempt from this?
I plan to copy that section and comment on all the ads I see pop up on my feed and let them know that I will under no circumstances purchase their product until this changes.
We rely on third-party fact-checkers to help reduce the spread of false news and other types of viral misinformation, like memes or manipulated photos and videos. We don’t believe, however, that it’s an appropriate role for us to referee political debates and prevent a politician’s speech from reaching its audience and being subject to public debate and scrutiny. That’s why Facebook exempts politicians from our third-party fact-checking program. We have had this policy on the books for over a year now, posted publicly on our site under our eligibility guidelines. This means that we will not send organic content or ads from politicians to our third-party fact-checking partners for review. However, when a politician shares previously debunked content including links, videos and photos, we plan to demote that content, display related information from fact-checkers, and reject its inclusion in advertisements. You can find more about the third-party fact-checking program and content eligibility here.
It says they'll do more if it's something that has been "previously debunked," so I guess politicians just have to make up new lies?
And this puts the FTC/DoJ antitrust investigations and Zuckerberg's comments about Warren in a new light, especially after everything that's been coming out. Zuckerberg met with Trump not two weeks ago - want to bet there was a little quid pro quo there?
Hello! Your ad popped up on my facebook feed! Just a quick FYI to you and/or your company, I will specifically NOT be purchasing your product (or anyone else's that I see on facebook for that matter) until the issue below is changed. Our politicians should not be allowed to lie to us, and facebook should not be aiding them in that practice.
"We rely on third-party fact-checkers to help reduce the spread of false news and other types of viral misinformation, like memes or manipulated photos and videos. We don’t believe, however, that it’s an appropriate role for us to referee political debates and prevent a politician’s speech from reaching its audience and being subject to public debate and scrutiny. That’s why Facebook exempts politicians from our third-party fact-checking program. We have had this policy on the books for over a year now, posted publicly on our site under our eligibility guidelines. This means that we will not send organic content or ads from politicians to our third-party fact-checking partners for review."
If you have an interest in my purchasing your product, take it up with facebook.
After a long period of trying to deny any responsibility for spreading misinformation during the 2016 election, Facebook has now decided to openly embrace making money over, you know, ensuring the world is a better place.
Plus I'm sure they sure they figure they'll get some quid pro quo from the GOP after 2020 and not have to worry about regulations.
I think the Facebook bosses are concerned that Warren may become the candidate with a platform of breaking up Facebook (and other big tech companies.) So they need Republicans to win out of self-defense.
where on facebook does it claim that politicians are exempt from this?
I plan to copy that section and comment on all the ads I see pop up on my feed and let them know that I will under no circumstances purchase their product until this changes.
We rely on third-party fact-checkers to help reduce the spread of false news and other types of viral misinformation, like memes or manipulated photos and videos. We don’t believe, however, that it’s an appropriate role for us to referee political debates and prevent a politician’s speech from reaching its audience and being subject to public debate and scrutiny. That’s why Facebook exempts politicians from our third-party fact-checking program. We have had this policy on the books for over a year now, posted publicly on our site under our eligibility guidelines. This means that we will not send organic content or ads from politicians to our third-party fact-checking partners for review. However, when a politician shares previously debunked content including links, videos and photos, we plan to demote that content, display related information from fact-checkers, and reject its inclusion in advertisements. You can find more about the third-party fact-checking program and content eligibility here.
It says they'll do more if it's something that has been "previously debunked," so I guess politicians just have to make up new lies?
where on facebook does it claim that politicians are exempt from this?
I plan to copy that section and comment on all the ads I see pop up on my feed and let them know that I will under no circumstances purchase their product until this changes.
We rely on third-party fact-checkers to help reduce the spread of false news and other types of viral misinformation, like memes or manipulated photos and videos. We don’t believe, however, that it’s an appropriate role for us to referee political debates and prevent a politician’s speech from reaching its audience and being subject to public debate and scrutiny. That’s why Facebook exempts politicians from our third-party fact-checking program. We have had this policy on the books for over a year now, posted publicly on our site under our eligibility guidelines. This means that we will not send organic content or ads from politicians to our third-party fact-checking partners for review. However, when a politician shares previously debunked content including links, videos and photos, we plan to demote that content, display related information from fact-checkers, and reject its inclusion in advertisements. You can find more about the third-party fact-checking program and content eligibility here.
It says they'll do more if it's something that has been "previously debunked," so I guess politicians just have to make up new lies?
Hello! Your ad popped up on my facebook feed! Just a quick FYI to you and/or your company, I will specifically NOT be purchasing your product (or anyone else's that I see on facebook for that matter) until the issue below is changed. Our politicians should not be allowed to lie to us, and facebook should not be aiding them in that practice.
"We rely on third-party fact-checkers to help reduce the spread of false news and other types of viral misinformation, like memes or manipulated photos and videos. We don’t believe, however, that it’s an appropriate role for us to referee political debates and prevent a politician’s speech from reaching its audience and being subject to public debate and scrutiny. That’s why Facebook exempts politicians from our third-party fact-checking program. We have had this policy on the books for over a year now, posted publicly on our site under our eligibility guidelines. This means that we will not send organic content or ads from politicians to our third-party fact-checking partners for review."
If you have an interest in my purchasing your product, take it up with facebook.
Incidently, facebook will no longer let me post this as it has been deemed a repetitive post. I think I maybe used it on 12 different ads
Though Zuckerberg told employees “I don’t know how to answer that exactly,” he said, “at some level it is not fair, but it may be optimal,” he said, ”…or better than the alternative. The alternative would be the government chooses all of the funding for all of the stuff.”
Zuckerberg uses the example of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH invests nearly $39.2 billion “in medical research for the American people” annually, according to its website, and of that money more than 80% is awarded through almost 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 universities, medical schools and other research institutions all around the world.
As a governmental agency, the NIH has to distribute grant money widely and carefully. But private money can be invested in large sums and on risky bets, says Zuckerberg.
This is literally him justifying plutocracy,and lying to do it. He really believes that he should be unaccountable to anyone - which is why Warren terrifies him.
And now Zuckerberg is trying to whitewash the creation of Facebook as a tool to connect and not a misogynistic HotOrNot clone, while forgetting that we have the fucking receipts:
Zuckerberg’s highly promoted speech introduced no new Facebook features or initiatives but was a defiant reply to critics of Facebook’s destructive effects on global society—manipulating voters, fomenting division, and even aiding genocide. He doubled down on Facebook’s handling of the treacherous business of implementing free expression at an unprecedented global scale. Despite considerable evidence that the approach has often fallen short, Zuckerberg still professes optimism: giving people a voice and connecting the world, he believes, are transformationally positive actions. Essentially, he’s saying—as he always has—that Facebook is essentially positive.
What’s more, he was claiming high ground for Facebook’s values. If you disagree with him on speech, he implied, you’re siding with the forces of censorship and elitism. He described a “countertrend … to pull back on free expression.” His foes, he implied, are the same kind of people who wanted Eugene Debs in prison, who wanted Vietnam protesters stopped. But the people whose Facebook presence is more disturbing include the likes of Alex Jones (whom Facebook ultimately banned) or… Donald Trump. The speech didn’t really take on those kinds of choices.
Zuck's also going to be defending the existence of his crypto-currency this week.
Zuck's also going to be defending the existence of his crypto-currency this week.
Isn't that effectively dead now that PayPal, mastercard, and visa have recently pulled out of it?
You would think so, but he'll probably just try pushing it harder. :rotate:
Yup, I saw him being interviewed on the news Monday morning. He's definitely going on the charm offensive.
Which might work if he had any. Zuckerberg is really his own worst enemy.
Every once in awhile, usually when Zuckerberg shoves a foot so far into his mouth it kicks him in his ass, I find myself flabbergasted that he hasn't just cashed out.
It's like, hey guy, you turned a Harvard Hot or Not into a multi billion dollar company. Good job.
Now just cash out to spend the rest of your life judging random women on a beach in Tahiti and let a grown up run the company you stumbled into.
Zuck's also going to be defending the existence of his crypto-currency this week.
Isn't that effectively dead now that PayPal, mastercard, and visa have recently pulled out of it?
You would think so, but he'll probably just try pushing it harder. :rotate:
Yup, I saw him being interviewed on the news Monday morning. He's definitely going on the charm offensive.
Which might work if he had any. Zuckerberg is really his own worst enemy.
Every once in awhile, usually when Zuckerberg shoves a foot so far into his mouth it kicks him in his ass, I find myself flabbergasted that he hasn't just cashed out.
It's like, hey guy, you turned a Harvard Hot or Not into a multi billion dollar company. Good job.
Now just cash out to spend the rest of your life judging random women on a beach in Tahiti and let a grown up run the company you stumbled into.
People get addicted to wealth and power and privilage.
Zuck's also going to be defending the existence of his crypto-currency this week.
Isn't that effectively dead now that PayPal, mastercard, and visa have recently pulled out of it?
Don't forget France and Germany banning it and Stripe pulling out as well. Basically all that's left are VC funds and reasonably unrelated tech companies (and kiva etc)
Zuck's also going to be defending the existence of his crypto-currency this week.
Isn't that effectively dead now that PayPal, mastercard, and visa have recently pulled out of it?
You would think so, but he'll probably just try pushing it harder. :rotate:
Yup, I saw him being interviewed on the news Monday morning. He's definitely going on the charm offensive.
Which might work if he had any. Zuckerberg is really his own worst enemy.
Every once in awhile, usually when Zuckerberg shoves a foot so far into his mouth it kicks him in his ass, I find myself flabbergasted that he hasn't just cashed out.
It's like, hey guy, you turned a Harvard Hot or Not into a multi billion dollar company. Good job.
Now just cash out to spend the rest of your life judging random women on a beach in Tahiti and let a grown up run the company you stumbled into.
People get addicted to wealth and power and privilage.
People also confused a stroke of good luck with skill and merit.
Zuck's also going to be defending the existence of his crypto-currency this week.
Isn't that effectively dead now that PayPal, mastercard, and visa have recently pulled out of it?
You would think so, but he'll probably just try pushing it harder. :rotate:
Yup, I saw him being interviewed on the news Monday morning. He's definitely going on the charm offensive.
Which might work if he had any. Zuckerberg is really his own worst enemy.
Every once in awhile, usually when Zuckerberg shoves a foot so far into his mouth it kicks him in his ass, I find myself flabbergasted that he hasn't just cashed out.
It's like, hey guy, you turned a Harvard Hot or Not into a multi billion dollar company. Good job.
Now just cash out to spend the rest of your life judging random women on a beach in Tahiti and let a grown up run the company you stumbled into.
People get addicted to wealth and power and privilage.
The more you see him talk about what he's afraid of wrt the government looking into facebook, the more it becomes obvious how much of this is about power. He has more money then he could ever need. What he wants is to be in control.
Zuck's also going to be defending the existence of his crypto-currency this week.
Isn't that effectively dead now that PayPal, mastercard, and visa have recently pulled out of it?
You would think so, but he'll probably just try pushing it harder. :rotate:
Yup, I saw him being interviewed on the news Monday morning. He's definitely going on the charm offensive.
Which might work if he had any. Zuckerberg is really his own worst enemy.
Every once in awhile, usually when Zuckerberg shoves a foot so far into his mouth it kicks him in his ass, I find myself flabbergasted that he hasn't just cashed out.
It's like, hey guy, you turned a Harvard Hot or Not into a multi billion dollar company. Good job.
Now just cash out to spend the rest of your life judging random women on a beach in Tahiti and let a grown up run the company you stumbled into.
People get addicted to wealth and power and privilage.
The more you see him talk about what he's afraid of wrt the government looking into facebook, the more it becomes obvious how much of this is about power. He has more money then he could ever need. What he wants is to be in control.
Zuckerberg has spent his entire adult life in the pursuit of settling things up so that he is accountable to nobody. Warren terrifies him because her argument is to say that he is accountable to the people through the government.
Zuck's also going to be defending the existence of his crypto-currency this week.
Isn't that effectively dead now that PayPal, mastercard, and visa have recently pulled out of it?
You would think so, but he'll probably just try pushing it harder. :rotate:
Yup, I saw him being interviewed on the news Monday morning. He's definitely going on the charm offensive.
Which might work if he had any. Zuckerberg is really his own worst enemy.
Every once in awhile, usually when Zuckerberg shoves a foot so far into his mouth it kicks him in his ass, I find myself flabbergasted that he hasn't just cashed out.
It's like, hey guy, you turned a Harvard Hot or Not into a multi billion dollar company. Good job.
Now just cash out to spend the rest of your life judging random women on a beach in Tahiti and let a grown up run the company you stumbled into.
Why would you think that there's anyone in the world more qualified than him? Most people at the top are just faking it as much as Zuckerberg or anyone. In fact, a lot of the "professionals" are worse at it.
Zuck's also going to be defending the existence of his crypto-currency this week.
Isn't that effectively dead now that PayPal, mastercard, and visa have recently pulled out of it?
You would think so, but he'll probably just try pushing it harder. :rotate:
Yup, I saw him being interviewed on the news Monday morning. He's definitely going on the charm offensive.
Which might work if he had any. Zuckerberg is really his own worst enemy.
Every once in awhile, usually when Zuckerberg shoves a foot so far into his mouth it kicks him in his ass, I find myself flabbergasted that he hasn't just cashed out.
It's like, hey guy, you turned a Harvard Hot or Not into a multi billion dollar company. Good job.
Now just cash out to spend the rest of your life judging random women on a beach in Tahiti and let a grown up run the company you stumbled into.
Why would you think that there's anyone in the world more qualified than him? Most people at the top are just faking it as much as Zuckerberg or anyone. In fact, a lot of the "professionals" are worse at it.
Zuckerberg has shown himself categorically incapable of dealing with the issues facing Facebook - his recent attempts to turn China into a boogieman illustrate this. One would hope that new leadership would not be as dismissive.
Zuck's also going to be defending the existence of his crypto-currency this week.
Isn't that effectively dead now that PayPal, mastercard, and visa have recently pulled out of it?
You would think so, but he'll probably just try pushing it harder. :rotate:
Yup, I saw him being interviewed on the news Monday morning. He's definitely going on the charm offensive.
Which might work if he had any. Zuckerberg is really his own worst enemy.
Every once in awhile, usually when Zuckerberg shoves a foot so far into his mouth it kicks him in his ass, I find myself flabbergasted that he hasn't just cashed out.
It's like, hey guy, you turned a Harvard Hot or Not into a multi billion dollar company. Good job.
Now just cash out to spend the rest of your life judging random women on a beach in Tahiti and let a grown up run the company you stumbled into.
Why would you think that there's anyone in the world more qualified than him? Most people at the top are just faking it as much as Zuckerberg or anyone. In fact, a lot of the "professionals" are worse at it.
Zuckerberg has shown himself categorically incapable of dealing with the issues facing Facebook - his recent attempts to turn China into a boogieman illustrate this. One would hope that new leadership would not be as dismissive.
This seems like great man fallacy. PR aside the incentives driving Facebook corporate policy would be exactly the same.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Zuck's also going to be defending the existence of his crypto-currency this week.
Isn't that effectively dead now that PayPal, mastercard, and visa have recently pulled out of it?
You would think so, but he'll probably just try pushing it harder. :rotate:
Yup, I saw him being interviewed on the news Monday morning. He's definitely going on the charm offensive.
Which might work if he had any. Zuckerberg is really his own worst enemy.
Every once in awhile, usually when Zuckerberg shoves a foot so far into his mouth it kicks him in his ass, I find myself flabbergasted that he hasn't just cashed out.
It's like, hey guy, you turned a Harvard Hot or Not into a multi billion dollar company. Good job.
Now just cash out to spend the rest of your life judging random women on a beach in Tahiti and let a grown up run the company you stumbled into.
Why would you think that there's anyone in the world more qualified than him? Most people at the top are just faking it as much as Zuckerberg or anyone. In fact, a lot of the "professionals" are worse at it.
Zuckerberg has shown himself categorically incapable of dealing with the issues facing Facebook - his recent attempts to turn China into a boogieman illustrate this. One would hope that new leadership would not be as dismissive.
Quite possibly they'd just loot Facebook for the data and abandon it to become the next MySpace. Professional CEOs who aren't attached to any one company tend to think "How much money can I shift from this company to my personal bank account while making the share-holders think I'm fixing things?"
Zuck's also going to be defending the existence of his crypto-currency this week.
Isn't that effectively dead now that PayPal, mastercard, and visa have recently pulled out of it?
You would think so, but he'll probably just try pushing it harder. :rotate:
Yup, I saw him being interviewed on the news Monday morning. He's definitely going on the charm offensive.
Which might work if he had any. Zuckerberg is really his own worst enemy.
Every once in awhile, usually when Zuckerberg shoves a foot so far into his mouth it kicks him in his ass, I find myself flabbergasted that he hasn't just cashed out.
It's like, hey guy, you turned a Harvard Hot or Not into a multi billion dollar company. Good job.
Now just cash out to spend the rest of your life judging random women on a beach in Tahiti and let a grown up run the company you stumbled into.
Why would you think that there's anyone in the world more qualified than him? Most people at the top are just faking it as much as Zuckerberg or anyone. In fact, a lot of the "professionals" are worse at it.
Zuckerberg has shown himself categorically incapable of dealing with the issues facing Facebook - his recent attempts to turn China into a boogieman illustrate this. One would hope that new leadership would not be as dismissive.
This seems like great man fallacy. PR aside the incentives driving Facebook corporate policy would be exactly the same.
No, not really. Again, Zuckerberg is driven by a personal desire to be in a position of unaccountability, as well as his own personal views on privacy. Someone who isn't in the same position as Zuckerberg, who has full voting control I doubt would be as antagonistic or as determined to assert their "rightness".
I'm comfortable with him dismantling his company before he gets forced out if that's what it comes down to. Facebook isn't an essential service
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm comfortable with him dismantling his company before he gets forced out if that's what it comes down to. Facebook isn't an essential service
Facebook is really great for organizing impromptu parties without having to keep lists of all your friends email addresses.
That was always a problem with email, which is technically social media but in a form so bad that it has zero networking power. Dress up email a bit and you basically have the good parts of Facebook without single corporate control.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Posts
Yeah, but "we weren't hacked, we left our database of private personal user information publicly accessible for anyone to scrape on purpose" is a weak defense IMO.
Judd Legum is a freelance reporter.
...Facebook delenda est.
I plan to copy that section and comment on all the ads I see pop up on my feed and let them know that I will under no circumstances purchase their product until this changes.
see how the advertisers like that.
Here's a blog post by a Facebook VP: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/09/elections-and-political-speech/
Here's the more relevant section you asked for (emphasis mine):
It says they'll do more if it's something that has been "previously debunked," so I guess politicians just have to make up new lies?
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I figure on this
Hello! Your ad popped up on my facebook feed! Just a quick FYI to you and/or your company, I will specifically NOT be purchasing your product (or anyone else's that I see on facebook for that matter) until the issue below is changed. Our politicians should not be allowed to lie to us, and facebook should not be aiding them in that practice.
"We rely on third-party fact-checkers to help reduce the spread of false news and other types of viral misinformation, like memes or manipulated photos and videos. We don’t believe, however, that it’s an appropriate role for us to referee political debates and prevent a politician’s speech from reaching its audience and being subject to public debate and scrutiny. That’s why Facebook exempts politicians from our third-party fact-checking program. We have had this policy on the books for over a year now, posted publicly on our site under our eligibility guidelines. This means that we will not send organic content or ads from politicians to our third-party fact-checking partners for review."
If you have an interest in my purchasing your product, take it up with facebook.
Nick Clegg, VP of Global Affairs and Communications: <blah>
or
<blah> -Nick Clegg, VP of Global Affairs and Communications
Just to make sure they know you are quoting official Facebook policy, and who's policy.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Steam | XBL
Plus I'm sure they sure they figure they'll get some quid pro quo from the GOP after 2020 and not have to worry about regulations.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Wait that Nick Clegg???
Jesus Christ reality
The same.
Steam | XBL
Incidently, facebook will no longer let me post this as it has been deemed a repetitive post. I think I maybe used it on 12 different ads
I have been getting those for weeks. Usually because I will now block/report epoch news on sight
This is literally him justifying plutocracy,and lying to do it. He really believes that he should be unaccountable to anyone - which is why Warren terrifies him.
Matt Yglesias is a writer for Vox.
We have your reasoning on paper, Mark! We know why you started this shit!
Zuck's also going to be defending the existence of his crypto-currency this week.
Isn't that effectively dead now that PayPal, mastercard, and visa have recently pulled out of it?
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Yup, I saw him being interviewed on the news Monday morning. He's definitely going on the charm offensive.
Which might work if he had any. Zuckerberg is really his own worst enemy.
Every once in awhile, usually when Zuckerberg shoves a foot so far into his mouth it kicks him in his ass, I find myself flabbergasted that he hasn't just cashed out.
It's like, hey guy, you turned a Harvard Hot or Not into a multi billion dollar company. Good job.
Now just cash out to spend the rest of your life judging random women on a beach in Tahiti and let a grown up run the company you stumbled into.
People get addicted to wealth and power and privilage.
Don't forget France and Germany banning it and Stripe pulling out as well. Basically all that's left are VC funds and reasonably unrelated tech companies (and kiva etc)
People also confused a stroke of good luck with skill and merit.
The more you see him talk about what he's afraid of wrt the government looking into facebook, the more it becomes obvious how much of this is about power. He has more money then he could ever need. What he wants is to be in control.
Zuckerberg has spent his entire adult life in the pursuit of settling things up so that he is accountable to nobody. Warren terrifies him because her argument is to say that he is accountable to the people through the government.
Why would you think that there's anyone in the world more qualified than him? Most people at the top are just faking it as much as Zuckerberg or anyone. In fact, a lot of the "professionals" are worse at it.
Zuckerberg has shown himself categorically incapable of dealing with the issues facing Facebook - his recent attempts to turn China into a boogieman illustrate this. One would hope that new leadership would not be as dismissive.
This seems like great man fallacy. PR aside the incentives driving Facebook corporate policy would be exactly the same.
Quite possibly they'd just loot Facebook for the data and abandon it to become the next MySpace. Professional CEOs who aren't attached to any one company tend to think "How much money can I shift from this company to my personal bank account while making the share-holders think I'm fixing things?"
No, not really. Again, Zuckerberg is driven by a personal desire to be in a position of unaccountability, as well as his own personal views on privacy. Someone who isn't in the same position as Zuckerberg, who has full voting control I doubt would be as antagonistic or as determined to assert their "rightness".
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Facebook is really great for organizing impromptu parties without having to keep lists of all your friends email addresses.
That was always a problem with email, which is technically social media but in a form so bad that it has zero networking power. Dress up email a bit and you basically have the good parts of Facebook without single corporate control.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.