Thursday, February 28, 2013

( Facebook As Suckface Hash Tag #FacebookSucks ) Patcnews: Feb 28, 2013 The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Reports - Facebook buys Microsoft ad technology platform Facebook As SuckFace Hash Tag #FacebookSucks © All copyrights reserved By Patcnews

Police: Why we reacted to Facebook pic of boy with rifle

Authorities in New Jersey say a heightened sensitivity to guns necessitated they go with child protection workers to the home of a man who posted a Facebook photo of his gun-toting 11-year-old.

The Facebook photo that started it all.
(Credit: Shawn Moore/Facebook)
We tend to react with feelings first and thoughts a little later.
Many in the last 24 hours have reacted with feeling (and the occasional thoughtfulness) to the visit paid by police to the New Jersey home of Shawn Moore.
Should you have been hospitalized after accidentally impaling yourself on a deer antler at your local gun club recently, here's the back story: Moore posted a picture to Facebook of his 11-year-old son, Josh, clutching (very properly) a .22-caliber rifle that looked like a little more than a .22-caliber rifle.
It was his birthday present.
As is ever more often the case these days, someone saw it, was perturbed by it and contacted the police.
Moore, in an appearance on Fox News, explained that he stood his ground, even though the police allegedly wanted to go into his safe to check all his guns.
The police and the Mayor of Carneys Point, N.J., have now issued a joint statement (PDF) in which they said: "In light of some of the recent school shootings across our nation, the Carneys Point Police Department takes these types of calls seriously."
The police explained that it was their job to visit the house to accompany members of child protection services.
The tip they had received reportedly said that a boy might have had access to guns and ammunition, according to the Associated Press.
It does seem odd, however, that the police allegedly demanded entry into Moore's house without a warrant. This seems especially odd, given that Moore claims that several of the officers actually knew him from his local gun club.
Did they think that because they knew him, he would be more malleable?
The Carneys Point authorities, meanwhile say they behaved correctly -- "At no time did the police attempt to unlawfully search this residence" -- and dressed in appropriate evening attire: "The police officers were not dressed in SWAT gear, they were dressed in their Class B uniforms with their body armor in a outer cover as they do every evening."
And the authorities confirmed that Shawn Moore would face no charges, according to the AP.
However, one thing for him to ponder might be who among his alleged Facebook friends might have made the initial call to police.
There is little point in trusting people. Even if you're the one with the gun.

Chris Matyszczyk is an award-winning creative director who advises major corporations on content creation and marketing. He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world.

Was Former Astronaut Mark Kelly’s AR-15-style Buy A Cheap Trick

Legitimate gun owners and supporters of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment have good reason to be outraged by Mark Kelly’s publicity trick to further gun control efforts in America. According to published Fox News reports, the former astronaut and husband of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a shooting victim 2 years ago in Tucson, Arizona purchased an AR-15-style rifle and a 45.-caliber handgun.
This comes on the heels of his highly publicized efforts in both Congress as well as in Colorado to assault the U.S. Constitutional rights of legal gun owners to own weapons. In fact, his comments which he posted on Facebook, according to published reports seem disingenuous, when he states that people could easily buy similar guns at gun shows or over the internet without background checks.
The fact is, Kelly did actually do exactly what other law-abiding citizens in Arizona or any other state in the union have done beforehand. The Diamondback Police Supply gun shop where he reportedly purchased the weapons from, followed state law and had him undergo the mandatory background check.

Well, surprise, surprise he passed without any hiccups. So what was his point?
Many supporters of gun rights have weighed in on his open display of reactionary theater, by correctly pointing out that his entire stunt accomplished was to bring attention to his and his wife’s newly formed gun control organization named, Americans for Responsible Solutions.
It appears that the organization’s leader, Kelly, was actually seeking to create irresponsible reactions from fellow gun control sympathizers who would somehow rise up in hysteria and join up or gin up more donations to his national gun control cause.
What Kelly does not seem to want to accept, is that as tragic and woefully unfortunate the mass shooting of his wife and others on that horrendous day in the Tucson area shopping center, it was not performed by law abiding citizens going on a rampage.
Her attempted assassination was due to largely in part to relaxed mental health laws dealing with mentally unbalanced and severely disturbed individuals that the mental health system in Arizona and other states have not be responsible for.
Kelly, instead resorted to the quick, the easy, and the attention-headline grabbing techniques which are assured to raise the ire of mainstream media liberal heads. The goal of course is to place greater pressure on states like Colorado, which are caught up in a monumental gun control pitched battle in their democrat controlled state legislature.
It is truly quite unfortunate, that a man who has given such admirable service to this nation, could be given to publicity stunts that actually undermine the very protections he served to uphold.
So where again is the news value in his attempt? The owner of the gun shop actually had to hold onto the weapon for the required 20 days, to ascertain if the weapon had actually been used in a crime. Again, where is the news and where is the imagined harm?

Nothing, you might say. And that would be absolutely correct, because Kelly’s point is a red herring. There is no news made if Kelly, were an ordinary citizen who decided to follow the laws of Tucson, and the state of Arizona and legally purchase weapons. But it becomes news by name association.

Well, here is a bit of news that protectors of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment rights can pass onto former astronaut Mark Kelly. Cheap parlor tricks will not destroy or impede the ability to Americans to exercise their right to bear arms.
Instead, Kelly should focus his and his organization’s attention on the real problem and that is to make certain that states and localities actually enforce the laws on the books and prosecute criminal offenders in cities like Chicago, which owns the nation’s highest murder rate.
If Americans for Responsible Solutions wants a real solution then start your efforts in Chicago. Help the parents and the innocents being assaulted in Chicago and get Obama’s former chief-of-staff, Mayor Rahm Emanuel to stop attacking gun rights and punish criminals who use guns to murder in that city.
Now that would be a real responsible solution all Americans could support!
Copyright © 2013 Kevin Fobbs. Subscribe above to receive email updates whenever Kevin Fobbs publishes on

How to customize your Facebook page for free

Give Facebook a near-complete makeover by using the free Social Fixer add-on for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and other browsers not named Internet Explorer.

Social Fixer desktop theme for Facebook
The free Social Fixer browser add-on provides a wealth of customization options for your Facebook account.
(Credit: Screenshot by Dennis O'Reilly/CNET)
Facebook is in the process of rolling out yet another interface revamp. As Sharon Vaknin described in a post earlier this month, the new look for the Facebook News Feed provides many new options for viewing your friends' posts.
You can add your name to the waiting list for the new-look News Feed, but you don't have to wait to enliven your Facebook page's appearance.
While the company provides only a handful of options for tweaking the look of your Facebook profile, Matt Kruse's free Social Fixer browser add-on (formerly named Better Facebook) takes Facebook customization to a new level. Social Fixer lets you update the social network's interface with a tabbed news feed, feed filters, image previews, and many other options.
Facebook's built-in customization features
There's a boring sameness about Facebook profiles. Pretty much all you can do is add profile and cover photos, change what appears on your timeline, and tweak the contents of your news feed. The Facebook Help Center provides instructions for adding a profile picture and cover photo; adding, hiding, and deleting items on your About page; and customizing the content of your news feed.

There's also information in the Help Center that describes customizing the appearance of a Facebook Page. According to Facebook's Managing a Page section, Pages can be created only by people who are "the official representative of an organization, business, celebrity or band."
Not being an official representative of anything or anyone in particular, I'll have to leave the Facebook Page crafting to someone else, alas.
Give Facebook some personality with Social Fixer
Just because Facebook hasn't placed much emphasis on customization to date doesn't mean we're stuck with the layout and options the company offers. The Social Fixer browser add-on spiffs up your Facebook account with such features as news-feed tabs, feed filters that let you direct specific items to one of your tabs, image previews, and themes.

Social Fixer works with Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari, Opera, and other browsers, but not with Internet Explorer. I tested the Chrome version of the add-on. The first screen of the program's seven-step setup wizard lets you choose the recommended settings or a "minimalist" approach that turns off most of the add-on's features by default.
The option to place application and game posts in separate tabs on your news feed is selected automatically on the setup wizard's second screen. The third lets you customize the chat list by removing the chat sidebar and replacing it with the old pop-up chat list. You can also show all online friends on the chat list (this option is selected by default), or use a compact chat list that does away with thumbnail images.
Social Fixer's Facebook chat-list display options
During setup the Social Fixer browser add-on lets you select one of three options for viewing Facebook's chat list.
(Credit: Screenshot by Dennis O'Reilly/CNET)
The fourth setup screen allows you to disable the "light box" or "theater" pop-up view for photos. I actually like Facebook's pop-up view for photos. Considering that the default option in Social Fixer is to retain the feature, many other people appear to like it, too.
The next setup option lets you view the full-size version of images when you hover over their thumbnails in any post or profile. The photo-preview setting is selected by default. One pet peeve of many Facebook users is addressed by the next Social Fixer option, which puts you on a new line when you press Enter while writing a comment rather than the Enter key posting the comment. Note that this option is deselected by default.
The setup wizard's last option lets you add a link to the Social Fixer news feed to Facebook's left pane.
Filter your feed, see which friends are online
After Social Fixer is installed, you'll notice tabs on your profile and news feed labeled Mark All Read, Show Hidden Posts, Mute All, Reload, and Undo. Social Fixer also reverts to showing the most recent posts on top, although a drop-down menu option allows you to switch back to having top stories appear first.

Click More under the main tabs to display the number of posts processed, hidden, filtered, moved to a tab, or reordered. Also displayed are the number of duplicate posts and the number of times the Older Posts option has been clicked.
Social Fixer tabs and stats for Facebook profiles and news feeds
Social Fixer adds buttons to the top of your profile and news feed that let you alter your view and see your recent post activity.
(Credit: Screenshot by Dennis O'Reilly/CNET)
Social Fixer reorganizes the chat list on the right side of the Facebook screen to put your friends who are currently available at the top of the list rather than the default alphabetical listing. The big change is in the left pane, where navigation panels are added for the pages you've liked and upcoming events. The pane can be customized by adding links to your favorite destinations, among other options.
Click the wrench icon that Social Fixer adds to the top of the Facebook window and choose Edit Social Fixer Options to view dozens of check boxes, text boxes, and lists for altering the Facebook interface. In the Popular category are options for hiding Trending Articles and Trending Videos, automatically moving posts from Applications (games) to a separate tab (selected by default), and changing the default font size for posts and comments.
Social Fixer Popular options
Social Fixer's many options let you change the font size of posts and comments, move application posts to a separate tab, and otherwise customize your Facebook feeds.
(Credit: Screenshot by Dennis O'Reilly/CNET)
Other Social Fixer options selected by default hide "Sponsored" stories from your news feed, change time stamps to their actual time rather than just "one hour ago," and disable auto-loading of posts as you scroll down. Perhaps the most powerful feature in the program is the ability to filter posts on your feed by user, type of post, and the presence of particular keywords. For example, you can create a filter that lets you read your sister-in-law's family news but blocks her posts discussing politics.
Social Fixer lets you view only new comments to old posts, see who has unfriended you, and apply one of a handful of themes or paste in a link to a third-party theme, although some third-party themes may not display properly. When I tested the program, not all the themes that ship with the app worked when I applied them in Chrome. You can also select a custom color scheme from a color palette.
It took no time at all to get used to Facebook with Social Fixer's many useful customizations. The hard part was switching back to the standard Facebook appearance in browsers that don't have the add-on installed. Hard as I try, I can't think of a down side to using the program.
Of course, a big question is whether Social Fixer will work with the new Facebook interface now being rolled out gradually. I'm hoping Mr. Kruse will figure out a way to let Facebook users revert to the old Facebook look if doing so is required for Social Fixer to work correctly.

Don't Miss

How to

Send YouTube videos to Xbox from iPhone

A recent update to Google's YouTube app for iOS allows you to send videos from the app to compatible devices such as an Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, or any number of smart TVs. In this example, Donald Bell shows you how to set up this connection between an iPhone 5 and an Xbox 360.

Tomio Geron
Tomio Geron, Forbes Staff
Covering start-ups, social and venture capital.

3/15/2013 @ 5:53PM |802 views

Facebook Names Mike Schroepfer CTO

Image representing Mike Schroepfer as depicted...
Image via CrunchBase
Facebook has named vice president of engineering Mike Schroepfer as its new chief technology officer.
The position has been vacant since former Friendfeed founder Brett Taylor, who became CTO after Facebook acquired his startup, left last year.
Schroepfer has overseen a number of technology projects at the social networking giant, including its extensive technology infrastructure.
“Mike Schroepfer’s new designation as Facebook’s CTO reflects the unique and important role he plays across the company,” a Facebook spokesperson said.
Schroepfer was previously vice president of engineering at Mozilla Corporation, where is was a key person in the development of the Firefox web browser.
He was also previously chief technology officer for Sun Microsystems’ data center automation division and was founder at CenterRun, which was acquired by Sun.

Is Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg really the new face of feminism?

She has caused a furore on both sides of the Atlantic with her controversial new book and Lean In project designed to empower women. But has her message any real relevance to the lives of most working women?

Sheryl Sandberg
Lean In author Sheryl Sandberg at World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland last year. Photograph: Jean-Christophe Bott/AP

Sheryl Sandberg, 43, chief operating officer of Facebook, is also the first and only woman to sit on its board. She has held senior positions at Google, the US Treasury and the World Bank. She graduated from Harvard with accolades, earns millions of dollars, is wife to David, who does his 50% share of domestic duties, and mother of two children, aged five and seven, who apparently rarely see her but that's OK, because a therapist said so. She is clearly smart, so it's a mystery how Sandberg is so short on common sense and has fallen for the oldest trick in the book. In Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead, Sandberg shows very little awareness of herself or the ridiculous nature of the system that she so doggedly and determinedly embraces. Her book should carry a toxic warning.
Sandberg's book has generated controversy in the US. Critics such as Anne-Marie Slaughter, the academic and former high flyer in the Obama administration who wrote an excoriating article in the Atlantic last year about why she couldn't "have it all" (as if anyone on this planet does), says Sandberg is too rich to pontificate to ordinary women. Wealth isn't Sandberg's problem. She says she has always seen herself as leading a social movement. She has set up a not-for-profit Lean In foundation for women to link up in "Lean In circles" and follow her instructions in the cause of self-advancement. Joining a union might prove infinitely more fun and, for women, has the greater potential for a change that benefits not just themselves but their sons and daughters and grandchildren too.
Sandberg, according to Time magazine, is on "a mission to reboot feminism". No she isn't. What she is is a handmaiden of a process that, since the 1960s, has been intent on customising feminism and turning it into a servant of the marketplace. Hence women's alleged advancement is now marked by pole dancing, Botox and anti-ageing cream for the under-30s, all packaged as "liberation-lite"; feminism with the nerve extracted. More than 40 years ago, when a handful of us decided to set up a women's liberation group in Northampton and were unable to agree on exactly how we would storm the ramparts of male oppression and under what banner (socialist-feminist? Marxist-feminist? Separatist-feminist required the sacrifice of a couple of spouses, so that was ruled out early), what we did agree upon is that feminism, for all its contradictions and confusions, is not about "adding in" women's rights. Instead, it has the modest aim of transforming society for the sake of women and men.
Sandberg, in contrast, is interested in telling women to pull themselves together or they'll never join the alpha males' club and the 1% – except as arm candy. It's a message some may want to hear, but it's conservative and neoliberal and doesn't even pass as feminist. "Lean in" is a clunky, self-conscious phrase. It puts you off balance, not least because by the time you reach the lengthy acknowledgments at the end of the book and discover that Sheryl has a "writing partner", Nell Scovell, it has already become plain that Sandberg is not a woman who understands what it means to stand shoulder to shoulder with her sisters or even to share a byline.
Sandberg's thesis is simple. She acknowledges there are difficulties in society. She illustrates this by a brief run-through of some of the numerous areas in the US, replicated in the UK, in which the women who make up half the population in both countries are next to invisible in every corner of public life. They are often employed on shockingly low pay, working a double shift taking on all domestic duties too. However, the bulk of Sandberg's book does not focus on the problems for women, but the problem of women.
In generalisations sufficient to fill the Grand Canyon, according to Sandberg, women lack confidence, don't speak up enough, refuse to sit "at the table" (with the big boys) and don't even demand that their partners do their fair share. "[Women] are pulling back when they ought to be leaning in." They even avoid some careers in preparation for the day they may have children. The key to success, as defined by Sandberg, is not to change or even challenge the system, but to mimic those who have gone before, ie men. She quotes a 2012 McKinsey survey showing that while 36% of male employees aspire to be top executives, that desire applies to only 18% of women. All will be well, according to Sandberg, if individual women only learn "to raise their hands", "toot their own horn", "think personally … substitute we for I", "fake it till you feel it" and become pushy in the workplace just like (some) men.
What Sandberg advocates is that "we can reignite the revolution by internalising the revolution". Yes, that old red herring.
Well, internalising the revolution is very popular with those in power. It's self-blame by any other name. What internalising does is deaden the collective muscle that, throughout history, has proved to be the only genuine igniter of change. Women live in fear, Sandberg writes, not of others but of not being liked, receiving negative attention and the threat of failure. Of course, some women face these fears, and some women don't (and others are too busy fighting to survive), but what would help is a system that works with the grain of their lives, not against it.
What would help is an acceleration in the time when women become a critical mass throughout organisations, not just at the bottom. What would make a real difference is when "women's issues" are recognised as issues that concern both men and women since they are most often rooted in the needs of children.
Sandberg also has another locus for social change. "This revolution will happen one family at a time," she writes. Bunkum. The personal is political and that's a good place to start but the past 40 years indicate that women and men, collectively campaigning for affordable, high-quality childcare, a living wage, flexible working, parental and part-time workers' rights, have done more for the family than any prolonged discussion among couples as to whose turn it is to scrub the bath.
Lean In is a manual of depoliticisation that reduces important issues, such as how to work and play and rear families as decent, self-respecting, mutually supportive human beings, to a set of personal problems that a bit more gumption will overcome. Or not. Sandberg is nothing if not contradictory. First, she advocates "drawing a line" and going home at 5.30pm, then announces she is available to Facebook 24/7 and rises to attend to her emails at 5am. What level of crankiness exists in the Sandberg home?
Lean In purports to be about some bright new dawn with Amazonian alpha females doing it better than the boys. On the contrary, its ethos is desperately old-fashioned. Time magazine bills Sandberg as "co-pilot of the biggest network of humans that the world has ever seen". That's scary. Facebook has more than one billion members, more than half of whom are female. Of course, she's good at what she does and she gets things done. In 2007, Facebook had 50 million users and $150m in revenue. Recently, it reported revenue of $1.59bn in its first quarter alone, in spite of sluggish results last year. Yet its famed "cutting edge" is really quite blunt.
If Sandberg had read Future Work by Alison Maitland and Peter Thomson, for instance, she would see numerous examples of how productivity goes up once technology and flexibility and trust in employees are successfully combined so that people can work from home in hours that suit them – even part-time! – and still climb the ladder.
Maitland and Avivah Wittenberg-Cox, in Why Women Mean Business, demonstrate how women's varied traits and characteristics have themselves a value to businesses without mutation into mini-males.
Professor Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe has researched assiduously for years the different styles of leadership that women successfully bring to organisations. And then there are Susan Cain's arguments in Quiet about the power of the introvert and how, counter to Sandberg's view, the less pushy male (Obama?) and female have a great deal to offer too. The key is surely learning how to bring out the best in people, not focusing on how unlike me (the male boss) they are.
Cordelia Fine, in A Mind of Its Own, explains how the brain has a multitude of strategies to keep our egos plump and self-satisfied. Sandberg's ego is exceedingly plump. The book is full of little strokes, such as mentioning that her family gets a lift in the private jet of eBay's chief executive and how wonderfully well her 20-minute TED talk was received. But then again, she's only doing what she spends 240 pages advocating. The woman is very definitely leaning in. But as far as her values are concerned, she's leaning into a void.

What other says: US reaction to Sandberg's book

"The view that Sandberg is too rich and powerful to advise working women is shortsighted; it assumes that any sort of success is antithetical to feminism. The truth is, feminism could use a powerful ally. Here's a nationally known woman calling herself a feminist, writing what will be a wildly popular book with feminist ideas, encouraging other women to be feminists. And we're worried she has too much influence? That she's too … ambitious?" Jessica Valenti, founder, feminist blog Feministing
"Sandberg is seeking not just to raise consciousness, but to forge a social movement. She wants her Lean In circles – all-women spaces to be supported by corporate workplaces – to teach women negotiation, public speaking, and other skills, all merged with upbeat collective support.
"This seemingly trivial approach is actually a solid recipe for success. I co-founded a similar program called the Woodhull Institute; by teaching these skill sets, and adding mutual support in an all-female space, our alumnae – whether from barrios or Ivy League universities – quickly and dramatically outpaced their peers." Naomi Wolf, author
"The book itself comes as a pleasant surprise. Sandberg's voice is modest, humorous, warm and enthusiastic. ... She's like someone who's just taken Women's Studies 101 and wants to share it with her friends." Katha Pollitt, poet and critic
"She has a grandiose plan to become the PowerPoint Pied Piper in Prada ankle boots reigniting the women's revolution — Betty Friedan for the digital age. She wants women to stop limiting and sabotaging themselves. Sandberg may mean well … But she doesn't understand the difference between a social movement and a social network marketing campaign.
"People come to a social movement from the bottom up, not the top down. Sandberg has co-opted the vocabulary and romance of a social movement not to sell a cause, but herself." Maureen Dowd, New York Times columnist and author

Women in Corporate America: Is this 2013 or 1953?

Click if you like this column!

Women in Corporate America: Is this 2013 or 1953?
Is Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg really complaining -- in 2013 -- that "only" 14 percent of executive officers are female, that women earn 77 cents compared to a dollar earned by men, and that women hurt their own advancement by failing to "lean in" and become more assertive?
Is this 2013 or 1953?
In her new book, "Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead," Sandberg writes that "while women continue to outpace men in educational achievement," women over the last 10 years have "ceased making real progress" in the top ranks of "corporate America."
That's quite an assertion -- especially since it isn't true.
Is it not the case that almost 60 percent of college students are women, and that females earn the majority of doctorates and master's degrees? Is it not true that in most large U.S. cities, single, childless women in their 20s now out-earn young men?
What about the fact that 40 percent of working wives out-earn their spouses -- up more than 50 percent from just 20 years ago? But for the media's infatuation with then-Sen. Barack Obama, and their resultant failure to properly vet him, Hillary Rodham would have become America's 44th president. She remains a frontrunner to become the 45th.
True, more men than women choose to go into the higher-paying fields of science, technology, engineering and math. But is "gender discrimination" -- rather than deliberate choice -- preventing women from pursuing those fields?
Let's examine Sandberg's assertion that she's seen no "real progress" in 10 years, and that the numbers of female board members, CEOs and executive officers have "stagnated."
Catalyst, a feminist nonprofit devoted to women in business, issues an annual report on the state of women in Fortune 500 companies. In 2002, women held 7.9 percent of executive officer positions in Fortune 500 companies. Ten years later, in 2012, women comprised 14.3 percent of executive officer positions. In 2002, America had six female CEOs in the Fortune 500. By 2012, there were 21 CEOs. The 2002 Catalyst report found females comprised 12.4 percent of those on the Fortune 500 boards of directors. In 2012, women held 16.6 percent of board seats. This is an increase of 34 percent. Not bad for lack of "real progress."

Patcnews: The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network 
© All copyrights reserved By Mark Eberle
  • 898,676 Tweets

    USA Today: Reports Teacher charged with propositioning student on Facebook

    GREENBACK, Tenn. (AP) — A teacher in eastern Tennessee has been charged with solicitation of aggravated statutory rape and solicitation of sexual exploitation of a minor after police say she sent inappropriate messages to a student over Facebook.
    Blount County Sheriff James Lee Berrong and Loudon County Sheriff Tim Guider say 37-year-old Angela Gaye Masingo of Lenoir City used a male student at another high school to deliver messages to the intended student over the social networking site.
    The sheriff's say Masingo, who taught at a school in Greenback, was being held at the Blount County Detention Center on bonds totaling $80,000 pending a hearing in Blount County General Sessions Court at 9 a.m. March 15th.
    facebook has me Block for the Next 30 days job facebook
    security It's nice to know that your attacking a American Broadcaster who has American Network in America who supports Freedom Good job facebook I can't wait to take facebook to court 10 millions for all the mess and harassment and Death Threads that our Network has receive on facebook in the last three years I people can't see our website links facebook keeps pulling them off people love our Broadcast Network facebook and twitter wants our broadcast network gone they enjoy attacking our Network It's nice to know that social network cares and helps the small Independence facebook pays for the The Big Networks however they will not do the same thing to the Independence broadcasts Why because facebook is control by the Government and facebook to a Kickback for the obama regime A Call Was Made from The FBI about The Attack from facebook The FBI Will have a Report this week about this the News will be force to report this Facebook is having a lots of issues from other people like our Honest Broadcast Network facebook knows that they can track people from prison how ever facebook security will not block them but facebook will block our Network link to share to support our network facbook hate this when our Network pulls this up UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
     The latest issue of TIME features an interview with Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg and an exclusive excerpt from her new book, 'Lean In.'

    Read more here:
    Sheryl Sandberg’s first employees, according to her family, were her siblings David and Michelle. “Initially, as a 1-year-old and 3-year-old, we were worthless and weak,” they said in a toast at her wedding. But by elementary school the person who is currently the chief operating officer of Facebook, and arguably one of the most powerful women in America, had whipped them into shape, teaching them to follow her around the house and shout “Right!” after each of her orations. Was this a game? Sort of. “To the best of our knowledge Sheryl never actually played as a child,” they said. “[She] really just organized other children’s play.”
    Sandberg tells these stories about herself early in her first book, a memoir–slash–”sort of feminist manifesto” in which she enjoins women to pursue their careers with more rigor, to engage more energetically in the corporate cook-off, to Lean In—as the book is titled—to the opportunities and challenges of becoming a boss. She says she had misgivings about sharing these family fables because they make her seem bossy, a term she takes issue with. “I notice bossy is applied almost always to little girls,” says Sandberg over lunch (she ordered a Wagyu hot dog with no bun and no relish). “It’s just not used for men.”
    In person, Sandberg does not give the impression that she’s bossy. She gives the impression that she was born 43, that she was delivered preloaded with the capacity and will to order people around but also the capacity and will to ensure that they thrive. Now that she is really 43, she has so perfected these skills that merely helping run a $66 billion tech company is not quite enough of a challenge. So Sandberg has taken on a new mission: to change the balance of power. That quest and her plan of attack have brought out the broadsides.
    (MORE: TIME’s Complete Coverage on Sheryl Sandberg)
    It would be un-Sandbergian to write a book and just leave it at that. Her campaign comes with, a nonprofit foundation with corporate partnerships, online seminars and guidelines for establishing support groups. It’s probably not an overstatement to say Sandberg is embarking on the most ambitious mission to reboot feminism and reframe discussions of gender since the launch of Ms. magazine in 1971.

    The thing is, she’s in a pretty good position to pull it off. She’s the co-pilot of the biggest network of humans the world has ever seen: Facebook’s roughly 1 billion members, most of whom are female, at least in the U.S. She’s worth hundreds of millions of dollars. And she has an undeniable record of knowing how to get things done. Her résumé, with its by-the-book stints at Harvard Business School, McKinsey and the Treasury Department, does not reek of revolutionary, but in the lineage of key feminist figures, she may well turn out to be pivotal. “In a sense it’s almost like Betty Friedan 50 years ago,” says author and historian Stephanie Coontz. “She’s talking to a particular audience, but they really need this message.”
    (MORE: Sandberg Exclusive Excerpt: ‘Why I Want Women to Lean In’)


    Confidence Woman


    Why, almost exactly 44 years after Lorena Weeks became the first woman to use the Civil Rights Act to win the right to be promoted, at Southern Bell, are we still arguing about women and success? Only flat-earthers and small boys don’t believe that women can lead huge Western democracies (thanks, Margaret Thatcher), head companies (thanks, Indra Nooyi), play exciting sports (thanks, Billie Jean King), rise to the rank of four-star general (thanks, Ann Dunwoody), change the world, trade cattle futures and be funny (thanks for all three, Hillary Clinton).
    But women’s journey to the top is having an altitude problem. Young female executives begin on the same career staircase as men, but it’s almost as if the stairs change direction, Hogwarts-like, and take them somewhere else. For three decades, more women than men have graduated from college, but that academic dominance has not led to corresponding business or political success. There are currently only 17 heads of state out of 195 who do not have a Y chromosome. Women hold about 20% of all seats in parliaments globally. Slightly more than 4% of Fortune 500 companies are headed by women, and women hold 17% of board seats. Worse, these numbers aren’t changing very fast. Ten years ago, 14% of board seats were held by women. A decade has passed, and women have gotten a few inches farther into the boardroom. “Women are not making it to the top of any profession in the world,” says Sandberg. “But when I say the blunt truth is that men run the world, people say, ‘Really?’ That, to me, is the problem.”
    Few people disagree that somewhere on the climb between the graduation podium and the C-suite, women are getting lost. The contentious issue is what—or who—is keeping them down. Fingers are pointed in every direction: the U.S. has primitive maternity-leave laws on par with those of Papua New Guinea—a country that still has actual cannibals. Women are hitting their childbearing deadlines around the time future executives are being winnowed out from regular management. Turnover at corporate boards, which are heavily male-dominated, is very slow; most have a mandatory retirement age of 72. American companies structure their workers’ days around the expectation that someone else is handling the home front. Men have welcomed women into the workplace, but housework, cooking and child-rearing duties are still borne largely by women.

    Sandberg acknowledges all these obstacles but drills down on one in particular, the one she says receives the least attention: the invisible barrier in women’s minds. “Compared to our male colleagues, fewer of us aspire to senior positions,” she writes. It’s not exactly that they’re to blame, she notes. Females are raised from birth to have different expectations. There’s an ambition gap, and it’s wreaking havoc on women’s ability to advance. “My argument is that getting rid of these internal barriers is critical to gaining power. We can dismantle the hurdles in ourselves today. We can start this very moment.”
    Do women want that kind of power? Are men hardwired to want the big paycheck, the high-horsepower career more? How much of women’s tendency to lean back stems from something deep in the DNA? Research findings suggest that women are as ambitious as men but that their ambition expresses itself in a different way. For Sandberg, these are not relevant issues, just as it’s unclear whether humans are genetically predisposed to eat too much or do so because of the food around them. Either way, it’s causing obesity and needs to change. “We have to evolve to meet new circumstances,” she says. “I’d like to see where boys and girls end up if they get equal encouragement—I think we might have some differences in how leadership is done.”
    Sandberg’s critics are quick to remark, Easy for you to say. She has two Harvard degrees, a rich but menschy CEO husband, vast personal wealth, all the household help she needs and a flexible workplace. She walked into two of the right companies—Google and Facebook—at the right time. Women lower on the scale of money and education may wonder just how Sandberg expects them to lean in to their paycheck jobs. And for her to suggest that other women aren’t doing the right things to be successful, well, it’s what many people are calling ballsy, as in that’s what a guy would say. Her thesis has already drawn the ire of other women working in the same field. (Men have been less voluble. This is no-win territory for them.)
    (MORE: Dominique Browning: More Ways Women Sabotage Themselves)
    “Are we going to spend another 20 years trying to make women adapt to a system that doesn’t fit them?” asks Avivah Wittenberg-Cox, who runs a global management consultancy, 20-first, that helps companies achieve greater gender balance. She points to data from McKinsey that businesses with more women on their boards are more profitable. “Companies need women. It’s a problem for them if women aren’t advancing.” She thinks Sandberg’s message is the wrong one. “It’s insulting to women to say they need to become more like men to succeed.”
    To be fair, that’s not exactly what Sandberg is saying. For all her success, she’s nothing like a man. She may currently have thousands of people saying “Right!” to her, but she’s refined her technique since elementary school. Now it blends an overwhelming amount of data with a weapons-grade ability to nurture and an exquisite organizational acumen. She’s like an escapee from a Star Trek episode in which Spock sired a child with an empath.
    Take her role at Facebook. COOs aren’t usually the rock stars in an organization. They’re the nuts-and-bolts guys—usually guys—executing the CEO’s will and hoping to get the top job. Sandberg’s approach has been a little different.
    “She built the whole business part of Facebook,” says Mark Zuckerberg, the social juggernaut’s hoodie-wearing CEO. “I didn’t know anything about running a company. [We] knew where we wanted to get, but we were lacking someone who was a visionary at how you work at large scale.” The company had about 70 million users and $150 million in revenue before she joined in 2008. Now it has a billion users and recently reported revenues of $1.59 billion for the quarter. “Some people emanate ‘I’m a pro at what I do. And I’m such a pro that when you’re around me, you’re going to want to be more of a pro too,’” says Chris Cox, Facebook’s implausibly young, handsome and Zen VP of product. “And that’s how it felt when she showed up.”
    Nobody at Facebook has an office. Sandberg sits two desks down from Zuckerberg in a corner of one of the social network’s parking garage–size open-plan buildings in Menlo Park, Calif. Next to her is a pillar with “I Love You, Mom” painted in childish letters, created during a visit to Mom’s workplace by her 7-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter. Opposite her sits her longtime assistant Camille Hart, who works on the multicolored megascreen spreadsheet that is her boss’s schedule. When Sandberg wants to talk to Zuckerberg, which is often, she spins around on her chair and literally leans in.
    Passionate even for Facebook, where messianic is the default attitude, Sandberg’s a huge fan of the word huge. As in, “That is huge.” “It’s a huge problem.” “This is hugely important.” Her second favorite word seems to be genuinely, although to be fair, she’s partial to all adverbs. She gestures continually, with her fingers bent at the second knuckle, as if she’s mixing pizza dough or winding yarn. She’s an ardent listmaker and is never without a little notebook. Each page is either a project or a person, and she rips them out when the tasks are done. “I feel my to-do list,” she says.

    Combined with her efficiency is her emotional quotient (EQ), an uncanny grasp of how people feel. In a meeting to discuss the purchase of a Web-design company—a process known as acqui-hiring, in which the deal is mainly aimed at bringing in new talent—Sandberg reminds her team that the firm’s founder is about to have a birthday and wants to get the deal done before the big day. “I think that birthday helps us,” she says. As Zuckerberg puts it, “She’s unique in that she has an extremely high IQ and EQ, and it’s just really rare to get that in any single person.”
    Sandberg doesn’t like to call what she does management. It seems too clinical. She has the gift of making others feel their contribution is significant. (Two people told me they were the first to take Sandberg’s kids to a farm.) She believes in crying in the office and devotes a chapter in her book to honest communication at work. “We argue pretty vehemently,” says Cox. “One thing I appreciate about Sheryl—when it’s about to get heated, we’ll call each other. We don’t raise our voices. We have a different tone.”
    Meetings are the vertebrae of any executive’s day, and Sandberg runs a brisk one. In the pre-Sandberg era, they didn’t always start on time. And there weren’t always notes. “Sheryl’s able to get a diverse set of people to get to a decisive position very quickly,” says Mike Schroepfer, VP of engineering. “She’s famously impatient.” She’s also practical, making sure people aren’t meeting on an empty stomach. “After Sheryl came to Facebook, I got a lot less hungry,” recalls Zuckerberg.

    The Sandberg Way

    After running thousands of meetings and hiring, directly or indirectly, thousands of people, Sandberg feels she’s in a position to comment about the way women work. And here’s what she’s noticed: it’s not their fault exactly, but they aren’t pursuing their careers in the most efficient way. Inefficiency is abhorrent to Sandberg. She has a sign in her conference room that reads, “Ruthlessly Prioritize”.
    Of course, we can’t all be Sheryl Sandberg. In fact, none of us can be Sheryl Sandberg. To understand why, it helps to know how she got to be who she is.
    “I was raised [to believe] that going into business was a bad thing,” says the oldest daughter of Joel and Adele Sandberg, an ophthalmologist and teacher from Florida. “You were supposed to be a doctor or work for the government or a nonprofit.” (Both her siblings went into medicine.) Sandberg thought she was going to be a lawyer. In sixth grade she took second place in a Florida-wide oratory contest, even though all the other speakers were in high school. That she couldn’t see over the lectern without a step stool didn’t diminish the impact of her speech about the folktale of the little red hen and the importance of everyone’s doing their bit for America.
    It was Sandberg’s parents who first demonstrated the power of the network. Joel is the efficient, competitive one, Adele the passionate, nurturing one. In the ’70s they were activists for Soviet Jews who were trying to emigrate to Israel. If one of the refuseniks, as they were known, was arrested or sent to a labor camp, the community reached out to a guy in London. He then called a bunch of supporters all over the world, including Adele Sandberg, and they activated a telegram program and called their local politicians. By 1987, partly as a result of pressure from Western nations and networks like the Sandbergs’, Jews were allowed to leave the Soviet Union. “My biggest concern for my kids was that they grow up to be a mensch,” says Adele. “If she ended up turning into a snob, I would not be proud of her.”
    After topping her public school and getting her undergraduate degree at Harvard, Sandberg was accepted into its law school. Despite the thriving aerobics class she’d started on campus—where she says she learned to smile even when she didn’t mean it—she went to work for the World Bank for her former professor Larry Summers. He had been her thesis adviser (she wrote about the economics of spousal abuse) and says, “I noticed her because she was the best student out of 75 or 80 in my undergraduate class.” After two years of international aid work, partly on Summers’ advice, Sandberg decided to skip law and do an M.B.A.

    Success vs. Popularity

    Sandberg learned one of the key lessons in her book during her time in business school (Harvard, again), and not in a good way. After her first year, she won a fellowship. The guys who won all talked about it. But Sandberg sensed it was better to keep quiet. “Female accomplishments,” she writes, “come at a cost.” And that cost is people declining to click on the Like button.
    Sandberg often refers to a 2003 experiment that found that students considered a successful entrepreneur in a case study more likable when her name was changed to a man’s. “The data says clearly, clearly, clearly that success and likability are positively correlated for men and negatively correlated for women,” says Sandberg. Finding that out “was the aha moment of my life.” It explains, she believes, why women who will negotiate ruthless deals for their clients will not do the same for themselves. It accounts for why women are less eager than men to trumpet their management triumphs or put themselves forward for leadership positions. Because women are supposed to be nurturing and peacemaking, not aggressive. When she clues in managers on the success-and-likability conundrum, “it completely changes the way they review women,” she says.
    Awkwardly, it turns out, women don’t particularly like successful women either. Sandberg points to how quickly people criticized her friend Marissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo, who went back to work two weeks after having a child and recently appeared to make Yahoo’s work practices a lot less flexible. “No one knows what happened there,” she says. “I think flexibility is important for women and for men. But there are some jobs that are superflexible and some that aren’t.” Regardless, she believes no man who ordered the same policies would have come under fire the way Mayer has.
    (MORE: Judith Warner: Why Sandberg Matters for Real Women)
    Sandberg, too, has drawn her share of opprobrium. After Anne-Marie Slaughter, an academic and former State Department honcho, criticized her in a much-talked-about essay on why women can’t have it all, Sandberg sent her an e-mail, which Slaughter talked about to a newspaper. Sandberg, the reigning world champion in finding a positive thing to say about everyone, initially declined to comment on this episode. The two have now made up.
    At least one prominent feminist is supportive. “Every group of people that has been systematically told they were supposed to play a limited role internalizes that role,” says Gloria Steinem. “She’s saying we have to both fight against the barriers and get them out of our consciousness.”
    Sandberg’s peers are generally supportive but guarded. “The most crucial thing for a woman to have if she’s going to get to the top is a sponsor,” says Ann Lee, author of What the U.S. Can Learn from China and a contemporary of Sandberg’s at Harvard Business School. “I was not terribly surprised at Sheryl’s success, because I knew Larry Summers had taken her under his wing.” In fact, after a short stint at McKinsey in 1996, Sandberg went to work with Summers again, this time at the Treasury Department. When he became the Treasury Secretary, she was his 29-year-old chief of staff. “I was hugely lucky, and that explains most of my success,” says Sandberg, “just like every man.”
    Her next move, to a small but energetic company called Google in 2001, took people more by surprise. Wayne Rosing, who now runs an astrophysics nonprofit, was vice president of engineering at the time and one of the people who interviewed Sandberg for the job. “She was such a Google type: smart, articulate, passionate and able to work through a problem she had never encountered before,” he says. What Rosing didn’t notice, however, was her passion for women’s rights: “She was just one of the guys, one of the players.” In fact, it was only after she got very sick while pregnant (the Sandberg women all had nine months of morning sickness) that she got the firm to put in special parking spots for expectant moms.
    “I never called myself a feminist or gave speeches on women as late as five years ago,” says Sandberg, whose interest in women’s leadership coincided with her joining Facebook in 2008. Until the week before Lean In came out, she was the only woman on Facebook’s board and had been there less than a year, and she’s still the only woman among its top executives. Since the day she took Facebook public in a much hyped IPO, the stock has yet to rise above its offering price; investors are skittish, and advertisers are skeptical. The company needs a steady presence and a cohesive face as it moves forward. This might explain why Sandberg’s nearly omnipresent Facebook handlers are quick to insist that Lean In is not a company project or a distraction and is definitely not Sandberg’s exit strategy. The only time Zuckerberg looked at one of the two p.r. reps present during our interview was when he was asked how irreplaceable she was. He finally came up with: “She has irreplaceable qualities.”
    Other employees are less cautious. “I have not thought about Facebook without Sheryl,” says Cox. “That would suck.” He’d respond, he says, by trying to get as good at writing noncheesy thank-you notes as Sandberg is. “If Sheryl were to leave, a bunch of us would say I need to absorb that and honor that,” he says. These people take their social networking seriously.

    How She Does It

    Among the myths that circle around Sandberg is that she leaves the office at 5:30 p.m. Actually, that is true. But after putting in some time with her family, she returns to work with a vengeance. She’s one of those work-hard, play-hardly-ever types. She usually goes to parties only to work the room or if she’s holding a gathering of women at her home. She and her husband Dave Goldberg try never to schedule dinners on the same night. If that does happen, she often calls on her sister. “She lives a mile away, and the answer is always yes,” Sandberg says.
    On their first outing, years before they started dating, Sandberg fell asleep on Goldberg’s shoulder during a movie. “I was smitten, but I found out later she does this to everyone,” he says. Her favorite film is 1994′s The Shawshank Redemption. The last time she picked a movie for a group of friends, she chose Fame. As punishment, the group made her sit through the whole film. And not sleep.
    In many ways her domestic life is very traditional. The family plays a lot of games; Zuckerberg recently taught them the Settlers of Catan. Her kids already get their own breakfasts and make their own school lunches (with help). Sandberg says studies that show working moms of today are as engaged with their kids as traditional moms of yore “make me feel so good, so much better.” She declines to answer questions about her domestic help, saying it’s not a question you would ask a man, then declines my offer to ask Goldberg the same question.
    Chapter 8 of Lean In claims that one of the most important career choices a woman makes is whom to marry. She and Goldberg, who’s as laid-back and genial as Sandberg is intense and energetic, dated after several years of friendship, during which time Sandberg was briefly married. Four years ago Goldberg left a big job at Yahoo so the family could be together in Northern California. He took over SurveyMonkey, which at the time had 14 employees. “That was hard,” he says. “But what Sheryl has been supergreat about is that there may be a time when we’re going to move someplace for my career.”
    (MORE: Readers Respond: How to Get Ahead at Work)
    The job change hasn’t held Goldberg back. SurveyMonkey now has a staff of 200 and 14 million users, and he just completed a recapitalization of the company that values it at $1.35 billion.
    Sandberg urges women to negotiate shared household duties with their spouses early and often. “We have areas of responsibility. I do travel. I do anything electronic, computers, cars,” says Goldberg. “I do photos and videos. We share the child care 50-50. Although it’s not like we keep score.” And he does the finances. Since Facebook went public, his wife has cashed out about $90 million worth of shares, according to a schedule that was set before the IPO, and she still has almost 18 million shares left. But she demurs when asked how much she’s worth, claiming that that’s Goldberg’s area. “He manages our money,” she says. “I have essentially no interest.”
    There is always chatter, especially among Californians, that Sandberg, who’s a big Democratic fundraiser, will return to the public sector. She has the contacts and skill set. “I really loved being in the government,” Sandberg says. “I won’t rule out that I would ever want to go in again, but not run for office. But, not now. It’s not the right time for my family.” According to her father Joel, public policy was always her first love, but he’s not sure she isn’t there already. “Turns out that she probably has a better platform for doing it this way,” he says.
    Sandberg doesn’t act as if she wants to leave her current job, even though it’s almost impossible for her to become CEO. “Ironically, having written a book about women and leadership, having, like, the top leadership role is not the most important thing to me,” she says. “I could have done that on the way out of Google. I had those offers.”
    It may be that solving the problem of fade-out in women’s potential is enough of a mission for Sandberg, at least for now. It has proved to be a significant challenge for many of the corporations and governments that have tried to address it. But it’s possible that in amassing circles of women and giving them simple empowering tools, she’s putting the infrastructure and players in place for a much more ambitious trophy than a seat in the corporate boardroom. Getting women to the highest echelons of business might be her idea of getting them to the starting line. After the women get the power, well, then she can really let loose.

    Read more:

    Facebook's Sandberg wants to lead new women's movement

    "Lean In" is the most visible manifestation of a years-long effort by Sheryl Sandberg to bring attention to a decade-long slog for women in top-management in the USA.

    MENLO PARK, Calif. — Sheryl Sandberg helped build Facebook into a multibillion-dollar company. Now, she wants to build a new women's movement.
    Little did she know that the launch of her book — Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead — would so swiftly ignite a national dialogue about women in the workplace, while drawing fire from critics who see her as naive and disconnected from reality.
    In her only interview with a newspaper, conducted at Facebook's sprawling campus in Silicon Valley, Sandberg doesn't shy away from the fight. The book that she describes as "sort of a feminist manifesto" has been fodder for weeks now, even before its March 11 launch. Indeed, a 60 Minutes profile will air Sunday night, a segment on ABC's Good Morning America is scheduled for Monday, and Sandberg appears on the cover of Time.
    MORE: Sandberg's message resonates with younger women
    The book, though dotted with career advice, details why American business largely remains a man's game, and what women — and men — can do to change that mindset. She details the insults and points the finger back at a culture that she says still doesn't fully comprehend the hurdles women face.
    "I welcome a reaction," Sandberg says. "If nothing was said, that would be disappointing. The point is to create a dialogue."
    If that means blowback from men and women uneasy about taking on the issues of gender equality in the workplace, so be it, she says. Most of the criticism leveled at the 43-year-old mother of two centers on the decades-old debate over whether working women can "have it all" — a career and family.
    That is likely to help sell her book, which already has a first printing of 400,000. And in aligning herself with a cross section of influential women such as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., feminist Gloria Steinem and tech CEOs, perhaps she can make progress on an issue that she says is a societal afterthought.
    Her mission transcends equal rights; she makes an economic argument, too. "We should use the talents of the full population," says the happily married Sandberg, who once said she leaves work at 5:30 to go home to see her kids.

    Lean In is the most visible manifestation of a years-long effort by Sandberg to bring attention to a decade-long slog for women in top-management in the USA. In the PR ramp-up to her book ("It is the only one I will ever write," she jokes.), she has coordinated the launch of a website,, and a think tank at nearby Stanford University to spread the word.
    The gambit might also signal the passing of a generational torch to a top-ranking executive at one of the most well-known companies in the world. Cultural trailblazer Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique as a housewife 50 years ago.
    Sandberg, who has earned the respect and admiration of her peers in Silicon Valley for her candor, is especially direct about the state of American women in upper management: She says it is desultory.
    "The blunt truth is that men still run the world," says Sandberg, whose slim tome (240 pages) doesn't so much highlight one of America's most powerful tech executives as it tackles head-on the challenges women face in the workplace.
    "Ten years of no progress is a stall," says Facebook's chief operating officer and No. 2 executive after CEO Mark Zuckerberg. "We need a new dialogue on gender."
    Workplace hurdles
    Women make up 51% of the U.S. population and 47% of the workforce, yet only 4% are CEOs and 17% are board members, according to Catalyst, a non-profit market researcher. They also earn, on average, just 77 cents for every $1 for a man, says the Institute for Women's Policy Research.
    "Almost no one understands that women have made no progress at the top in 10 years — that is true of any industry and government," Sandberg says. "I want to change the conversation from what (women) can't do to what we can do."
    If nothing else, she wants to dispel the perception that a woman can't have it all and erase stereotypes in the workplace. One common theme in the book: As men advance, they are more liked. But as women make strides in an organization, they are less liked.
    While her personal crusade has earned her much admiration, it has detractors. They reject what they deem the Superwoman ideal, especially one that comes from a C-suite mom who has the finances to afford child care and other amenities.
    Sandberg sidestepped comment on critical pieces in The New York Times and London's Daily Mail that portrayed her as a rich elitist hopelessly out of touch with most women.
    "There is a lively debate," she concedes. "Passions run deep, which is good. I'm simply worried about stagnation and apathy on this topic."
    She also denied the book is a springboard to a run for political office, as some recent reports suggest. "Absolutely not."
    Her message is simple: A deep cultural shift among men and women is needed just as much as a legislative one, based on Sandberg's anecdotes of lingering sexism from the halls of Silicon Valley to investment banks in Manhattan.
    In one passage, she recounts how former House speaker Tip O'Neill said to her, "You're pretty. Are you a pom-pom girl?" In another, she describes an unnamed male executive who welcomed questions from other men during a dinner meeting but wouldn't allow women to join in.
    Her own work experiences, and recent and even current data on women in Corporate America, led her and others to this conclusion: Despite progress from 1970 to the mid-1990s, the revolution has stalled.
    To illustrate her point, Sandberg grabbed a yellow legal pad from a reporter and drew two lines flatter than a crushed ant — both depicting the "gains" women had made as CEOs and board members from 2002 to 2012. The percentages have hovered in the mid-teens, with little change.
    "I believe the women's movement has stalled," says Gillibrand. "Sheryl is creating an organized effort … for women to be heard."
    Sandberg is "not putting herself out on all women's issues — it's up to lawmakers to change the dynamics in Washington," says the first-term senator, who is sponsoring legislation for equal pay and improved child care. The two are friends and allies in furthering women's issues.
    An overachiever's advice
    Sandberg is a rare, overachieving exception in this testosterone-dominated corporate world: chief of staff at the Treasury Department by age 29; vice president at then-obscure start-up Google at 32; chief operating officer of Facebook.
    Her fast-track career might even land her in the CEO seat at Facebook one day, if its current occupant, Zuckerberg, decides to focus on long-term product development as Bill Gates did at Microsoft. Such is the conventional wisdom in Silicon Valley circles.
    Lean In amounts to a secondary job for Sandberg, who oversees daily operations at Facebook, which has annual revenue of $5.1 billion. But she has eagerly embraced this mission.
    "There are several factors that contributed to the stalled revolution that started in the mid-1990s," says Shelley Correll, professor of sociology and director of the Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford University. At Sandberg's invitation, she has spoken to Facebook employees about reducing gender bias.
    "Workplaces haven't really changed, especially for women who are about to have children while they are in middle management," Correll says. "For just starting the conversation, she has done us all a favor."
    This is not an overnight revelation for Sandberg, who first broached the topic in 2010 at the TED conference — an exclusive retreat for thought leaders — and again in a speech at Barnard College's graduation the following year.
    The book is an outgrowth of her tireless work as an "organizer and activist" for a broad swath of women, says Gina Bianchini, CEO of social-networking service Mightybell and a longtime Sandberg friend.
    "The true power of Sheryl is she brings together women of different backgrounds, interests and experiences," says Bianchini.
    In a post on her Facebook page last month, Steinem said that Lean In "addresses internalized oppression, opposes the external barriers that create it, and urges women to support each other to fight both. It argues not only for women's equality in the workplace, but men's equality in home-care and child-rearing. Even its critics are making a deep if inadvertent point: Only in women is success viewed as a barrier to giving advice."
    Finding 'the right balance'
    Like her predecessors, Sandberg may inspire and irritate. She has legions in the tech community who idolize her — as well as inflamed concerns among detractors, who call her movement a top-down operation fueled by a personal fortune worth hundreds of millions on paper and a bully pulpit in Facebook, which has more than 1 billion members.
    "You can have it all, by her definition, which is unrealistic," says Alexandra Levy, a former Google executive hired by Sandberg before Sandberg left for Facebook. "But I think she misses the fundamental issue about time management. There are only 24 hours in a day. How many hours do you want to spend with kids? Exercising? Running a huge company?"
    "Life is about choices," says Levy, who is managing partner of Silicon Alley Media, a digital marketing and communications agency. "You can't do it all, but you can try to find the right balance. There is a reality and context to what you do."
    Adds Doreen Bloch, CEO of personal-care site "I don't question Sandberg's intentions or perspective. She is a marvelous leader, and I consider her a role model. I personally do not see value in buying the book because the concept is straightforward. Rather than read about climbing the corporate ladder, it's best to just get back to work."



Key Rates
  • Mortgage
  • Home Equity
  • Savings
  • Auto
  • Credit Cards
See today's average mortgage rates across the country.
TypeToday1 mo
30-Year Fixed3.56%3.61%
15-Year Fixed2.86%2.93%
10-Year Fixed2.93%3.04%
5/1-Year ARM2.73%2.83%
30-Year Fixed Refi3.63%3.57%
15-Year Fixed Refi2.95%2.91%
5/1 ARM Refi2.86%2.76%
30-Year Fixed Jumbo4.04%4.15%
Rates may include points.
See More Key Rate Data

Sponsored Links

Image AdTry SurveyMonkey for FREETrusted by 99% of the Fortune 500. Make better decisions.
Image AdSurveyMonkey®Focus groups, product feedback, ad testing and much more.
Image AdBecome a leader.Earn the graduate degree that will give you the skills to lead. Learn more.
Ads by Marchex

UPDATE 2-Facebook buys Microsoft ad technology platform

Thu Feb 28, 2013 5:36pm EST
* Terms not disclosed
* Technology should help Facebook show effectiveness of ads
* Aids Facebook battle with Google for online display ads
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb 28 (Reuters) - Facebook Inc said on Thursday it had agreed to buy advertising technology from Microsoft Corp that measures the effectiveness of ads on its website, which should help in its fight with Google Inc for online advertising revenue.
Under the long-rumored transaction, Facebook will purchase the Atlas Advertiser Suite, an ad management and measurement platform that Microsoft took on with its $6.3 billion acquisition of digital ad agency aQuantive in 2007. Facebook did not say how much it paid for the technology.
Unable to make it work for its own purposes, Microsoft wrote off $6.2 billion of the aQuantive deal's value last year.
Facebook has long been dogged by doubts about the effectiveness of its ads and was embarrassed just days before its initial public offering in May when General Motors Co declared it was pulling the plug on all paid advertising on Facebook's network.
Since then, Facebook has introduced a number of tools and partnerships to prove to marketers that advertising on its social network delivers enough bang for the buck.
Brian Boland, Facebook's director of monetization product marketing, said the purchase of Atlas was not a step toward creating a much wider ad network beyond the Facebook site, but analysts believe that is Facebook's ultimate goal.
"Although the statement announcing the deal focused on Atlas' measurement tools rather than its ad targeting technology, we expect that Atlas will soon be using Facebook's data to target sponsorships, in-stream ads, and other rich ad formats across the entire web, and that's big news," said Forrester analyst Nate Elliott.
"The question now is how quickly and successfully Facebook can integrate its data with Atlas' tools, and whether they can avoid a privacy backlash as they do so. History suggests they'll struggle on both counts," he said.
Google leads the $15 billion U.S. market for online display ads with 15.4 percent share, according to researcher eMarketer, followed by Facebook with 14.4 percent.


Facebook buys Microsoft ad technology platform

Related Topics

The Facebook logo is pictured in the Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park, California January 29, 2013. REUTERS/Robert Galbraith

SAN FRANCISCO | Thu Feb 28, 2013 5:39pm EST
(Reuters) - Facebook Inc said on Thursday it had agreed to buy advertising technology from Microsoft Corp that measures the effectiveness of ads on its website, which should help in its fight with Google Inc for online advertising revenue.
Under the long-rumored transaction, Facebook will purchase the Atlas Advertiser Suite, an ad management and measurement platform that Microsoft took on with its $6.3 billion acquisition of digital ad agency aQuantive in 2007. Facebook did not say how much it paid for the technology.
Unable to make it work for its own purposes, Microsoft wrote off $6.2 billion of the aQuantive deal's value last year.
Facebook has long been dogged by doubts about the effectiveness of its ads and was embarrassed just days before its initial public offering in May when General Motors Co declared it was pulling the plug on all paid advertising on Facebook's network.
Since then, Facebook has introduced a number of tools and partnerships to prove to marketers that advertising on its social network delivers enough bang for the buck.
Brian Boland, Facebook's director of monetization product marketing, said the purchase of Atlas was not a step toward creating a much wider ad network beyond the Facebook site, but analysts believe that is Facebook's ultimate goal.
"Although the statement announcing the deal focused on Atlas' measurement tools rather than its ad targeting technology, we expect that Atlas will soon be using Facebook's data to target sponsorships, in-stream ads, and other rich ad formats across the entire web, and that's big news," said Forrester analyst Nate Elliott.
"The question now is how quickly and successfully Facebook can integrate its data with Atlas' tools, and whether they can avoid a privacy backlash as they do so. History suggests they'll struggle on both counts," he said.
Google leads the $15 billion U.S. market for online display ads with 15.4 percent share, according to researcher eMarketer, followed by Facebook with 14.4 percent.
(Reporting By Alexei Oreskovic and Bill Rigby; Editing by Leslie Gevirtz and Tim Dobbyn)

Don't miss it

Facebook CFO calls Instagram a 'formidable competitor'

David Ebersman's statements about Instagram paint the photo app as both friend and foe.

Even as Facebook's property, Instagram, now with more than 100 million active users, could still pose a threat to the social network's business. "One of the services that is, I think, a quite formidable competitor is Instagram," David Ebersman, Facebook chief financial officer, told a crowd of investors today at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, & Telecom Conference.
The striking statement, made in direct response to a question about whether competitors are siphoning attention away from the social network, speaks volumes about Instagram's status as a powerful photo social network all its own.
The comment, particularly when coupled with previous disclosures, also suggests that the photo app is stealing away member attention from Facebook with no payoff. Facebook may own Instagram, but it's not profiting when members choose to use the ad-free app in favor of its ad-laden Web site or mobile applications.
In early February, Facebook confessed that some people -- teens in particular -- are indeed shifting their attention away from its own apps to competitors' services.
"We believe that some of our users, particularly our younger users, are aware of and actively engaging with other products and services similar to, or as a substitute for, Facebook," the company admitted in its 10-K annual report. "For example, we believe that some of our users have reduced their engagement with Facebook in favor of increased engagement with other products and services such as Instagram."
Now, we have two pieces of evidence that depict Instagram as a cannibal. Instagram is, quite literally, eating Facebook's young. And Ebersman, when asked specifically about how Instagram users are migrating over to Facebook, also admitted that the social network doesn't yet know how the applications relate to each other.
The problem is an important one for the company to solve -- and quickly. Facebook is maxing out its ability to show growth in the new user department, which means Wall Street will need to see an increase in time spent with the site to measure its health. For its part, Facebook believes that its ability to algorithmically sort the News Feed and pluck out content people will find most interesting is core to keeping its members engaged, Ebersman said. 

Local News

19-year-old sex offender accused of trying to groom boys on Facebook

james1SEATTLE — A 19-year-old registered sex offender has been arrested in Federal Way for allegedly trying to groom young boys on Facebook.
Authorities said the mother of a 13-year-old boy noticed an older person writing to her son on Facebook and discovered he was a registered sex offender.
Police said that person was Leland Alexander James, 19, who was convicted of child molestation in 2008 when he would have been 16.
After a police investigation of his alleged comments on Facebook, James was arrested. He faces two counts of communication with a minor for immoral purposes. He is being held on $100,000 bail; his arraignment is scheduled for March 7.
Police said the suspect wrote to the 13-year-old boy, “I just added u cause u were cute honestly.”
“That is not looking for a friend; that is the beginning of a grooming process,” said cyber security expert Linda Criddle.
The mom Googled the suspicious man on the screen and discovered he was a registered sex offender. But she didn’t stop there; she did a little more digging and found out that three of her son’s friends were mutual friends with the man on Facebook.
She alerted the kids’ parents, police and their schools.
Police said all three of those kids were contacted via Facebook by the defendant. Most of the kids were 13.
In one case, police say, a 14-year-old high school boy on Facebook agreed to meet the suspect at a park, but the suspect never showed up.
The defendant’s family was upset and did not want to talk on camera but did say the 19-year-old is being mislabeled as a sex offender.
Criddle says this case should be a wake-up call for all parents. She says many 13- and 14-year-olds are too young to be on social networking sites like Facebook.
“The most important is having the conversation, not that you are against using Facebook but that they have the skills to use the service, that they know to look out for creep behavior,” Criddle said.
Here are some other tips.
Parents should set up social networking accounts such as Facebook with their children and know their passwords.
Be sure settings are on “privacy” so only friends and family can see it and limit photos and personal information on the profile page.
Parents should tell their  kids never to talk to strangers online.

Read more:

Jennifer Van Grove reports on social media for CNET. She previously worked for VentureBeat, Mashable, and NBC San Diego.

Face-Lift at Facebook, to Keep Its Users Engaged

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Save
  • E-mail
  • Share
  • Print
  • Reprints

SAN FRANCISCO — Facebook plans to announce on Thursday a substantial redesign of its News Feed — a makeover aimed at both keeping users glued to the social network and luring more advertising dollars.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Many Facebook users have taken a sabbatical from the site, sometimes because of boredom.

More Tech Coverage

News from the technology industry, including start-ups, the Internet, enterprise and gadgets.
On Twitter: @nytimesbits.
Stephen Lam/Getty Images
Mark Zuckerberg says advertisers want big pictures.
Company executives have broadly said they want to make the News Feed, the first page every user sees upon logging in, more relevant.
In an earnings call with Wall Street analysts in January, the company’s founder and chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, offered some hints of what a reimagined News Feed might look like: bigger photos, more videos and “more engaging ads.”
“Advertisers want really rich things like big pictures or videos, and we haven’t provided those things historically,” Mr. Zuckerberg said at the time.
Facebook declined to comment on the redesign, which is scheduled to be announced at its headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif. But the adjustments will reflect the tricky balance Facebook faces now that it is a public company: to keep drawing users to the site while not alienating them with more finely targeted advertisements, which is Facebook’s chief source of revenue.
The pressures are acute, given Facebook’s still anemic performance on Wall Street. It came out of the box last May with an extraordinarily high valuation of $38 a share, which slumped to half last fall, and has remained for the most part under $30.
“They have to walk a fine line between the user’s needs and advertiser’s needs,” said Karsten Weide, an analyst with IDC. The user, he went on, could use “better, more intelligent filtering,” while the advertiser needs “smarter, more flexible advertising formats.”
Facebook’s challenge is all the more important considering some warning signs of boredom.
Earlier this year came worrying news that 61 percent of users had taken a sabbatical from the social network, sometimes for months at a time; boredom was one of the reasons cited in the survey by the Pew Research Center. Even worse, 20 percent had deactivated their account entirely.
Advertisers have for years wanted to find new ways to show targeted ads to Facebook users, based on the vast data that the social network has about them. But Facebook has at times run into problems with new advertising products.
For example, last year, just before it filed for its public offering, it began to show advertisements in the News Feed, largely in the form of the controversial Sponsored Stories, where one user’s “like” for a brand was deployed to market that brand to a user’s Facebook “friends.”
Last fall, again in an effort to drum up new revenue, Facebook offered brands and individual users a way to pay Facebook to promote a particular post on the News Feed. Those who did not pay could expect an average post to reach about a third of their Facebook friends, according to the company’s own analysis. That immediately drew criticism, including from Mark Cuban, a technology investor and owner of the Mavericks basketball team, who wrote in an angry post on his blog ( last fall that Facebook had made it too expensive for a brand like the Mavericks to reach its fans.
This week, responding to fresh criticism, Facebook said it did not “artificially suppress” content to feature paid posts.
The social networking giant has tweaked its News Feed over the years. Since 2009, Facebook has filtered what every user sees on the News Feed, based on the wisdom of its proprietary algorithm, called Edge Rank, which determines which posts a particular user is likely to find most interesting.
In 2010, it allowed users to chronologically filter the contents of the scrolling feed. The next year, it introduced a separate right-hand-side ticker — Twitter-esque, some said — of everything that every “friend” and brand page had posted.
At the heart of Facebook’s business is to hold the attention of its one billion users worldwide. That means keeping them entertained and on the site as frequently as possible.
It seems to be losing this battle somewhat with its youngest users. Teenagers are increasingly turning to other services, including Instagram, which Facebook now owns, so much so that David A. Ebersman, the company’s chief financial officer, said last week in a conference sponsored by Morgan Stanley that Facebook considered the photo-sharing site a competitor.
Instagram is not its only worry. Americans are increasingly turning to Pinterest to share shopping desires with their friends; Tumblr is a popular forum for self-expression, and Twitter continues to grow as a platform for news and entertainment.
Many people may no longer know all their “friends” on Facebook, which makes it difficult for the company to stuff the News Feed with posts that users will find relevant. Then there are ads.
“The bigger opportunity for Facebook is in cracking the relevance nut,” said Travis Katz, founder of an online travel service, Gogobot, that is integrated with Facebook.
“The noise-to-signal ratio in the feed has increased dramatically,” he added, “to the point where I often miss stories that were important to me.”
At the Morgan Stanley conference, Mr. Ebersman said the company’s filtering algorithms get “smarter” the more a Facebook user clicks on what is displayed on the News Feed.
“So of all the information we are able to show you on Facebook, we are trying algorithmically to pick out which pieces of content to put at the top of your News Feed because we think you will find them most engaging.”
  • Save
  • E-mail
  • Share
Get Home
DeliveryGet 50% Off The New York Times & Free All Digital Access.

Chenda Ngak /
CBS News/ March 7, 2013, 1:22 PM

Facebook launches News Feed redesign

Facebook's redesigned News Feed.
Facebook's redesigned News Feed. / CNET/Josh Lowensohn #FakeNews

Are you ready? Facebook is changing again. This time the company is focused on clearing the clutter and creating a "personalized newspaper."
Facebook unveiled a redesign of its News Feed on Thursday. The social network hosted a press event at its Menlo Park, Calif. headquarters.
"News feed is one of the most important services that we build," said Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and added that the company wants to give everyone in the world a copy of the best newspaper in the world: a personalized newspaper.
Zuckerberg says the type of stories told through photos as opposed to words is very different. Facebook's new design will have big images, content-specific feeds and mobile consistency.
Facebook product design manager Julie Zhou says the company is concerned about clutter. In the new design, Zhou says the company wants attachments and articles to shine.
The new design will give posts like places and third-party apps more prominence and bigger images. Video will also get a new look. Now, people tagged in a video will have a thumbnail appear on the left side.
Facebook is introducing a variety of ways to look at the News Feed that lets users choose how they experience their feeds. The new feeds include: "All Friends," "Photos," Music" and "Following." The company says it will start rolling out the changes on the Web on Thursday. Mobile apps will start to see changes in the next few weeks.
Facebook users have a long history of resisting changes made by the social network and there has been chatter of a phenomenon called "Facebook fatigue," in which users of the social network are becoming bored.
A recent report from the Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project found that some 61 percent of Facebook users had taken a hiatus of at least several weeks for a myriad of reasons.
Facebook maintains that its user engagement remains strong and reports over 1 billion monthly active users. Citing independent analyst reports, the social network says that Facebook's app is the most downloaded mobile app in the United States.
Gartner analyst Brian Blau is not surprised that Facebook is revamping its look again and points out that the social network's main news feed had not undergone an overhaul in about three years.
"To be fair, Facebook continually adjusts the contents of the new feed, but they haven't really revamped its user interface or layout during this time," Blau told CBS News via email.
Blau thinks the changes will be positive for Facebook in the long run.
"If history is any indication, these changes will help Facebook over time as their goal would be to improve the user experience, and the site changes Facebook has made in the past have for the most part improved the service for both users and businesses," Blau said.
Facebook recently introduced a new feature called "Graph Search," which is a robust search engine that will run inside of the social network. Its last major change was the introduction to Timeline on Sept. 22, 2011. Although Facebook promised a quick rollout, it has yet to force all users to switch to the new look.
Facebook was launched in February 2004 from Zuckerberg's dorm room at Harvard University. The social network reports over 1 billion monthly active users as of December 2012.
© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. 
This on CBS News Report  

Around the Web

  Facebook As ( SuckFace )  Hash Tag #FacebookSucks


Facebook 'Likes' reveal more about you than you think

Using a dataset of more than 58,000 U.S. Facebook users, University of Cambridge researchers predicted race, age, IQ, sexuality, personality, substance use and political views using Likes alone.

If you "Like" lots of people, places and things on Facebook, you may get rewarded with discounts and special offers. But new research out today shows that these public Likes reveal more about you than you may think.
Using a dataset of more than 58,000 Facebook users in the USA collected between 2007 and 2012, researchers at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom were able to accurately predict certain qualities and traits, such as race, age, IQ, sexuality, personality, substance use and political views using Facebook Likes alone.
The Likes include photos, friends' status updates, Facebook pages of products, sports, musicians, books, restaurants or popular websites.
"Likes represent a very generic class of digital records, similar to Web search queries, Web browsing histories, and credit card purchases," says the study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The participants gave researchers access to their Facebook pages and they completed a variety of online tests, including personality and IQ. Their Likes were fed into algorithms and researchers created statistical models that were able to predict the personal details using Facebook Likes alone. Results were corroborated with information from the Facebook profiles and personality tests.
"Each person, on average, liked 170 things," says psychologist Michal Kosinski, the study's lead author. "Some liked only one thing and there were people who liked thousands of things. We removed those. We looked at people who liked between one and 700 different things."
Sam Gosling, a psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin, calls it a "landmark study" because it illustrates "how things are no longer ephemeral." He has been studying Facebook behavior since 2006, and has seen this new study.
"You 'Like' something. You leave a comment on somebody's wall. They are now recorded in a way that machines can calibrate and measure them with great accuracy," he says. "Together, they add up to substantially more information from which you can make quite reasonably accurate predictions."
Fred Wolens, a Facebook spokesman at its headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., says the predictions are "hardly surprising."
"No matter the vehicle for information — a bumper sticker, yard sign, logos on clothing, or other data found online — it has already been proven that it is possible for social scientists to draw conclusions about personal attributes based on these characteristics," he says.
Rebecca Lieb, a digital media analyst at the Altimeter Group, a consulting firm in New York City, agrees.
"Advertising and marketing focus on this, but it's important not to isolate this as only an online issue or a social network issue," she says. "Data is being collected at every stage of our lives. If you're using a credit card, you're opening yourself up to as much data collection as if you're using Facebook or searching online and getting cookies collected in your browser."
The study found the highest accuracy for ethnic origin and gender, with African Americans and Caucasians correctly classified in 95% of cases. Males and females were correctly classified in 93% of cases; Christians and Muslims in 82% of cases. Sexual orientation was easier to distinguish among males (88%) than females (75%).
The study notes that Likes that are the "best predictors of high intelligence include 'Thunderstorms,' The Colbert Report, 'Science" and 'Curly Fries.' Low intelligence was indicated by liking (Facebook pages for) 'Sephora,' 'I Love Being A Mom,' 'Harley Davidson' and 'Lady Antebellum.' " Researchers gave no further explanation of these findings.
The study also suggests that the findings may have "negative implications for personal privacy."
David Jacobs, consumer privacy counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a public interest research center in Washington, that focuses on civil liberties and privacy, says this study aligns with others involving predictions based on social networking information.
"This is not unique to Facebook and is not even unique to social networking in general," Jacobs says. "It's one of the implications of Big Data and in this case Big Data in a social networking context. Lots of information makes for certain inferences and sensitive predictions."
"It's the current state of the digital world," adds Kosinski.


Content and Programming Copyright 2014 By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network © LLC UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE All copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.  © All Copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we could find essentially no ties whatsoever which would indicate any  Facebook affinity or connection whatsoever with those of the Right-Wing--beyond one tiny donation by one Facebook official to Republican Carly Fiorina of HP fame.
Ultimately, we must each be our own judge of what is happening between Facebook and the Conservatives who utilize the site, but the question we,  both at Conservative Refocus and initially put forth, has certainly been strengthened by the available information uncovered through our research.  The other ironic fact is simply that what we may be seeing in these ideological deletions could be the recognition by Facebook of the fact that Conservatives are using these same powerful social networking tools to meaningfully connect, organize and interact across the country in much the same way as the Obama Facebook members successfully used for the President to gain power and eventually win the Presidency.
Obama's Facebook being used by Conservatives in a Saul Alinsky-like turnabout?  This would be yet another observed case of "live by the sword, die by the sword" ideological retribution would it not?
A simple word of caution.  Please remember:  Every time you sign onto Facebook, your IP address is logged along with your exact location.  So imagine, if you will, what might be next for Conservatives and dissidents who oppose those in power while using a social network with designs that could be plotting against its own Users behind the scenes.
- See more at:

Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg
When we look at all of these facts tied in together, we find  that a strong case could be made regarding Facebook's seeming soft-attack on Conservatives, Libertarians and Republicans--and even certain Christians as details continue to emerge.  The reports that we have informally received from various members do seem to indicate an ideological persecution of certain members who actively engage in supporting their various causes which are of a Conservative nature.
We can further confirm a number of deep-rooted ties to the Obama Administration and Facebook company officials,  noting that Zuckerberg indicates himself only as an Independent and an Atheist while being an outspoken opponent of privacy issues--which puts him squarely in the camp opposing Constitutional Conservative principles.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we could find essentially no ties whatsoever which would indicate any  Facebook affinity or connection whatsoever with those of the Right-Wing--beyond one tiny donation by one Facebook official to Republican Carly Fiorina of HP fame.
Ultimately, we must each be our own judge of what is happening between Facebook and the Conservatives who utilize the site, but the question we,  both at Conservative Refocus and initially put forth, has certainly been strengthened by the available information uncovered through our research.  The other ironic fact is simply that what we may be seeing in these ideological deletions could be the recognition by Facebook of the fact that Conservatives are using these same powerful social networking tools to meaningfully connect, organize and interact across the country in much the same way as the Obama Facebook members successfully used for the President to gain power and eventually win the Presidency.
Obama's Facebook being used by Conservatives in a Saul Alinsky-like turnabout?  This would be yet another observed case of "live by the sword, die by the sword" ideological retribution would it not?
A simple word of caution.  Please remember:  Every time you sign onto Facebook, your IP address is logged along with your exact location.  So imagine, if you will, what might be next for Conservatives and dissidents who oppose those in power while using a social network with designs that could be plotting against its own Users behind the scenes.
- See more at: