A Message from DCI CEO Dan Acheson

[JimF-LowBari]

20 minutes ago, BigW said:

The Harrisburg City Schools are also notorious for this. When I taught there, the new teachers were herded together and told by the PR director we were to get permission from him to talk to the local paper about ANYTHING. Given their abject failure for decades and the nincompoop admins and school boards they have had in place for that time for the most part... And I use nincompoop politely. The situation's been loathsome.

Was that before the city took over because it was so bleeped up? Considering how bleeped up the city was/is OY!!!

probably when my sis lived downtown and had a falling down building next door. Slum lord owner of that house was spouse of a school board member 

[BigW]

51 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Was that before the city took over because it was so bleeped up? Considering how bleeped up the city was/is OY!!!

probably when my sis lived downtown and had a falling down building next door. Slum lord owner of that house was spouse of a school board member 

Before and after, Jim. They district had a chance when they had a guy that ended up leaving to become State Secretary of Ed. Then they put in the relative of a board member who was the principal at John Harris and was promoted way beyond their capability.... Don't get me started on him. He's a case study on the PA School Boards Association website as a cautionary tale for what will happen when you fire someone under contract no matter what a fool they are- you'll still have to buy them out. Somehow, he got hired down South. Why? Beats me.  They had things slowly recovering when the Mayor got rid of the Superintendent and for some reason I can't fathom other than ones I can't say here... put his assistant in charge. The logic fails me. If the person is a "failure" and they really weren't... why would you hire the person helping them!?

 

All I know is this- they don't like anyone probing their abject failures at the administrative level. They like throwing out weak excuses. Now that the Patriot News has been pretty much trashed as an entity, the only journalism being done at all about the district is in "The Burg", a local free magazine. I've been meaning to contact the editor and sit with them to talk about the fact they've been too kind and circled around the issues. Basically... it boils down to this:

 

A lot of people in Harrisburg have been doing a lot of good things to recover the city and make it a much better place to live. The  issue is, if you have kids and live in that district, is it just assumed you will send them to the local Catholic High School, or to the local non-religious Private Academy?

 

The city won't truly get better until the city school district gets its act together. It's a cornerstone to making things better in any troubled place.

 

Sorry for my little frustration there. Having taught there as one of six band directors in five years, I saw the kids were good, decent kids for the most part. Every school has its jerks and troublemakers. The politics and inept administrations have let those kids down and keeps letting them down to this day.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by BigW

[JimF-LowBari]

Gotta check the Burg as PennLive only good for obits and if something is breaking like highway wrecks or fire somewhere. Thanks...

John Harris (NOT Harrisburg) was my mom’s alma mater so lot of interest 

[N.E. Brigand]

Trying to phrase this as neutrally as possible:

There's a big new story in the New York Times about how Facebook, having discovered that something like 127 million Americans had been unwittingly exposed via that platform to disguised propaganda by a foreign government meant to hurt or help American political candidates in 2016 (efforts apparently aided in part by data collection undertaken by a British research company called Cambridge Analytica) went to extraordinary lengths to, shall we say, put the best possible spin on that story and closely manage how the news was made available to the public. I couldn't help but think of Dan Acheson's video when I read the following passage:

In March [2018], The Times and The Observer/Guardian prepared to publish a joint investigation into how Facebook user data had been appropriated by Cambridge Analytica to profile American voters. A few days before publication, The Times presented Facebook with evidence that copies of improperly acquired Facebook data still existed, despite earlier promises by Cambridge executives and others to delete it.

Mr. Zuckerberg [Facebook's founder and CEO] and Ms. Sandberg [Facebook's COO] met with their lieutenants to determine a response. They decided to pre-empt the stories, saying in a statement published late on a Friday night that Facebook had suspended Cambridge Analytica from its platform. The executives figured that getting ahead of the news would soften its blow, according to people in the discussions.

They were wrong. The story drew worldwide outrage, prompting lawsuits and official investigations in Washington, London and Brussels. For days, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg remained out of sight, mulling how to respond. While the [U.S. DOJ] investigation [into this foreign interference] had devolved into an increasingly partisan battle, the Cambridge scandal set off [both political parties]. And in Silicon Valley, other tech firms began exploiting the outcry to burnish their own brands.

Facebook hired a firm called Definers Public Affairs to help them manage the fallout. DCI probably can't afford Definers' services, but the Times story describes some techniques that DCI might consider. One was to use back channels to spread stories about how there was an international conspiracy to undermine Facebook. The boogeyman in those conspiracy theories was an well-known activist (whom I will not name lest this post be deemed too political). Who could DCI spread rumors about?

The other technique DCI might consider is, to quote Definers' founder, to "have positive content pushed out about your company and negative content that’s being pushed out about your competitor." And so Facebook worked with Definers so that "On a news site called the NTK Network, dozens of articles blasted Google and Apple for unsavory business practices." Who could DCI attack to make themselves look better? DCA? BOA?

[JimF-LowBari]

Hmmm could Apple and and Google be considered business rivals of fb? Asking as DCA and BOA would have potential customers (future members) of DCI so attacking them could affect membership. Plus having staff In all three.

interesting parallel though 

[N.E. Brigand]

20 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Hmmm could Apple and and Google be considered business rivals of fb? Asking as DCA and BOA would have potential customers (future members) of DCI so attacking them could affect membership. Plus having staff In all three.

interesting parallel though 

Not direct competitors but holding something of a similar space in consumers' minds, I guess. Zuckerberg also made his executives all switch to Android phones after Apple's Tim Cook criticized how Facebook handled privacy issues.

That sounds rather Hopkinsesque to me.

[JimF-LowBari]

14 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Not direct competitors but holding something of a similar space in consumers' minds, I guess. Zuckerberg also made his executives all switch to Android phones after Apple's Tim Cook criticized how Facebook handled privacy issues.

That sounds rather Hopkinsesque to me.

Thinking Henry Ford seeing a Chevy in the Ford plants parking lot. Next day no Chevy and no person who drove it. But come from an auto background 

[BRASSO]

2 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Trying to phrase this as neutrally as possible:

There's a big new story in the New York Times about how Facebook, having discovered that something like 127 million Americans had been unwittingly exposed via that platform to disguised propaganda by a foreign government meant to hurt or help American political candidates in 2016 (efforts apparently aided in part by data collection undertaken by a British research company called Cambridge Analytica) went to extraordinary lengths to, shall we say, put the best possible spin on that story and closely manage how the news was made available to the public. I couldn't help but think of Dan Acheson's video when I read the following passage:

 

 

Facebook hired a firm called Definers Public Affairs to help them manage the fallout. DCI probably can't afford Definers' services, but the Times story describes some techniques that DCI might consider. One was to use back channels to spread stories about how there was an international conspiracy to undermine Facebook. The boogeyman in those conspiracy theories was an well-known activist (whom I will not name lest this post be deemed too political). Who could DCI spread rumors about?

The other technique DCI might consider is, to quote Definers' founder, to "have positive content pushed out about your company and negative content that’s being pushed out about your competitor." And so Facebook worked with Definers so that "On a news site called the NTK Network, dozens of articles blasted Google and Apple for unsavory business practices." Who could DCI attack to make themselves look better? DCA? BOA?

 Facebook ? My goodness. 'Talk about " the pot calling the kettle black ". Their Company executives at the highest levels certainly do not have clean hands themselves here when it comes to attempts to manipulate political elections. What is happening to DCI has virtually nothing at all to do with election interference, real or imagined. I don't see anything to connect, nor link the two here at all, frankly. Besides, imo, the best thing that DCI could do to " look better ", is to simply tell the truth, early and often .. and tell openly what they knew and when they knew it. If DCI or any social media outlet is primarily interested in how they are perceived,  or asking themselves " who can we spread rumors about " as some sort of devious defensive or vengeful strategy, then they are likely headed down the wrong path.  They'd be missing the time honored tradition that telling the truth and being upfront and transparent is the best long term successful strategy for ethical organizations to take in a free society and has been since the birth of the Republic.

Edited November 15, 2018 by BRASSO

[N.E. Brigand]

41 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

I don't see anything to connect, nor link the two here at all, frankly. Besides, imo, the best thing that DCI could do to "look better", is to simply tell the truth, early and often .. and tell openly what they knew and when they knew it. If DCI or any social media outlet is primarily interested in how they are perceived,  or asking themselves "who can we spread rumors about" as some sort of devious defensive or vengeful strategy, then they are likely headed down the wrong path. They'd be missing the time honored tradition that telling the truth and being upfront and transparent is the best long term successful strategy for ethical organizations to take in a free society and has been since the birth of the Republic.

The parallel I was making was between two companies that, when informed by a reporter who was working on a negative story, decided to preemptively issue a statement meant to make the company look better. Facebook did that. And DCI did that.

Given that similarity, I thought it might be worthwhile to look at other strategies that Facebook adopted in their effort to make bad news go away. I thought it was obvious I was being tongue in cheek! I was not seriously suggesting, for instance, that Dan Acheson start a whisper campaign claiming that you, Brasso, were the dark power secretly trying to bring DCI down. Nor that Acheson should use, say, Jeff Ream as a cut-out to get Tricia Nadolny to write negative stories about DCA.

But Facebook did that sort of thing and more over the past two years.

(In other words, I agree with you that DCI should be fully forthcoming and transparent.)

That Times story on Facebook is fascinating, by the way, and well worth reading for those who have a few minutes to spare. A lot of bad decisions by a lot of people.

[Jeff Ream]

3 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Trying to phrase this as neutrally as possible:

There's a big new story in the New York Times about how Facebook, having discovered that something like 127 million Americans had been unwittingly exposed via that platform to disguised propaganda by a foreign government meant to hurt or help American political candidates in 2016 (efforts apparently aided in part by data collection undertaken by a British research company called Cambridge Analytica) went to extraordinary lengths to, shall we say, put the best possible spin on that story and closely manage how the news was made available to the public. I couldn't help but think of Dan Acheson's video when I read the following passage:

 

 

Facebook hired a firm called Definers Public Affairs to help them manage the fallout. DCI probably can't afford Definers' services, but the Times story describes some techniques that DCI might consider. One was to use back channels to spread stories about how there was an international conspiracy to undermine Facebook. The boogeyman in those conspiracy theories was an well-known activist (whom I will not name lest this post be deemed too political). Who could DCI spread rumors about?

The other technique DCI might consider is, to quote Definers' founder, to "have positive content pushed out about your company and negative content that’s being pushed out about your competitor." And so Facebook worked with Definers so that "On a news site called the NTK Network, dozens of articles blasted Google and Apple for unsavory business practices." Who could DCI attack to make themselves look better? DCA? BOA?

attacking DCA and BOA is basically attacking cousins. They share many judges and staff folks, and members often flow from one to the other