Fake-news against Facebook. 

What lies behind the fake campaign against Facebook. The ridiculous EU regulation for the protection of personal data.

The  (EU) Regulation 2016/679, which  will enter into force throughout the EU on next 25 May <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=IT>, 

 requires all public bodies and all private companies to comply with a complex code of conduct for the protection of personal data of the public and customers.

This regulation consists of 88 pages, that in my humble opinion are not worth the paper on which they are printed (in all EU languages) because even the less informed citizens know that, when even before the protection of personal data was already haphazard, currently, at the time of the internet, there can no longer be any guarantee of privacy protection. Wherever you go you are filmed by video cameras, whatever you write using the internet you are  easy prey to the global data collection system, Snowden told us clearly.

How can we believe that a true guarantee is possible, if we periodically learn (and always only thanks to some "whistleblower") that yet another bank or insurance has been the victim of electronic piracy and the data of thousands of bank cards have been stolen or clients.

Deliberately, the rulers try to direct attention to the phantom dangers that would arise for citizens from the collection and use of personal data by "Facebook" or similar platforms, which only with a childish ingenuity can  believe as "non-commercial".

Then, if anyone can freely use these services, does this mean that Zuckerberg is like Santa Claus and his billionaire empire is a charity work?

Of course, every time you turn on a computer connected to the Internet, you have to imagine being in a window open to everyone, not only to local passers-by but to the whole world.

Yet we know that billions of citizens all over the world are voluntarily making their data available to Facebook and therefore to all those who can pay for them and make the use they want.

No one seems to realize the contradiction between the false seriousness of the rulers in issuing ever stricter laws for the protection of data and the reality of the facts, for which the citizens themselves voluntarily put themselves on display.

One of the fake pillars of the capitalist system was freedom of expression and transparency: here it is.

But  “One-way transparency,” however, since in reality the system operates on the absolute confidentiality of the fundamental decisions taken by governments and boards of directors of multinationals, decisions that affect the lives of citizens and, as we have seen, are not rarely matters of life or of death (see falsehoods widespread in art to justify invasions and wars, sale of arms, increase in military spending, provocations against other states, etc.).

Absolute secrecy does not exist even for this type of decision, sooner or later lies are discovered: but the capitalist system plays on the timing, the facts made and irreversible.

 For example, it is discovered that some companies with

Yet we know that billions of citizens all over the world are voluntarily making their data available to Facebook and therefore to all those who can pay for them and make the use they want. But where is the problem?

What is the presumed fear that others know about us? Once upon a time there were those who wished to leave anonymity: "He would kill himself in the newspapers".

No one seems to realize the contradiction between the false seriousness of the rulers in issuing ever stricter laws for data protection and the reality of the facts, which sees the citizens themselves voluntarily showcase their every step (those who do not want it simply avoid use these communication platforms). So it is clear that the controversy against "Facebook" is false and c # is behind some other purpose. The protection of private hope is certainly not among these purposes.

One of the fake pillars of the capitalist system was freedom of expression and transparency: here it is.

One-way transparency, however, since in reality the system operates on the absolute confidentiality of the fundamental decisions taken by governments and boards of directors of multinationals, decisions that affect the lives of citizens and, as we have seen, are not rarely matters of life or of death (see falsehoods widespread in art to justify invasions and wars, sale of arms, increase in military spending, provocations against other states, etc.).

Absolute secrecy does not exist even for this type of decision, sooner or later lies are discovered: but the capitalist system plays on the timing, the facts made and irreversible. For example, it is discovered that some companies with the sale of milk powder in the Third World caused a huge increase in child mortality can serve to limit and eventually stop the operation: but in the meantime the profit has been collected, and this is how much is important for the capital. And in the meantime, before this inhumane source of profit comes to an end, always with the same system of false information other ones have been opened: on the dominion of capitalism the sun never sets.

And so the old maxim is worth: the best custodian of private life is ... who keeps everything for himself and does not talk to anyone. All the rest is even good that we know: except the criminals, anyone else has nothing to fear that their tastes or interests are known, that their ideas are known by others, if it is honest thoughts (otherwise it is well that they remain in the mind).

To conclude a curious detail: the aforementioned law, while on the one hand pretends to protect the living, has no mercy for the dead. In fact, article 27 states: "This regulation does not apply to personal data of the deceased.", Even if, goodness to them, the authors of the regulation allow exceptions "Member States can introduce rules for the processing of data of deceased persons".

Facit: the aforementioned regulation is a total hoax designed solely to prepare the big blow, that is the censorship of dissident journalistic publications from government narratives. and Facebook scrupulously deletes the "post" unwanted by power, that is, what for higher orders (of which the public knows nothing) should not spread news.

Even the Council of Europe has admitted that even in the European Union media and the press (due to the concentration of their property in a few hands) can not be considered more free in the true sense of the word (https: //www.coe .int / en / web / commissioner / - / the-alarming-situation-of-press-freedom-in-europe), widely documented, as also underlines an article in Reporters Without Frontiers (http://foreignpolicy.com/ 2016/07/07 / Europes-freedom-of-speech-fail /).

but it does not end here: with the excuse of "blocking false news" the attempt to impose a preventive censure is underway, with which the EU will close the circle of hypocrisy: fake protection of private data, true protection of the "truth" of State "(and of the multinationals).

Even the Council of Europe has admitted that  in the European Union media and the press (due to the concentration of their property in a few hands) can not be considered more free in the true sense of the word (https: //www.coe .int / en / web / commissioner / - / the-alarming-situation-of-press-freedom-in-europe), widely documented, as also underlines an article in Reporters Without Frontiers (http://foreignpolicy.com/ 2016/07/07 / Europes-freedom-of-speech-fail /).

but it does not end here: with the excuse of "blocking false news" the attempt to impose a preventive censure is underway, with which the EU will close the circle of hypocrisy: fake protection of private data, true protection of the "truth" of State "(and of the multinationals).

 The next step is already in preparation, and will obviously be presented as a regulation for the protection of "correct information", but it will actually be the protection of ..." truth of State "through the cancellation of the dissidence passed for" fake news ".

So it is "highlylikely" if you like.