Me Criticize Arnab Goswami

Indian media has no standard with their news, what happens in Kashmir is purely manipulated to show on the television. One statement of one person becomes the topic of debate for two weeks. Sometime party on chair buys entire channel for their promotion and sometime other party pay high to blame the party on chair. Tag me as anti-Indian after reading all these, and trust me I do not care. One video is leaked on face book, twitter and every social media where one person shouts in the news room and we youth bring him as a hero and debate maker by sharing it all the time, it’s really silly, you don’t know the entire matter, you don’t know the fact, and just because he is speaking loudly and making his speech interesting you are making him viral. You know very well whom I am talking about. The matter of JNU was the only part where I found ok with his anger and monopoly type of debate apart from that no other video has satisfied me yet, The national media hero of India Wow I mean really the man who do not let other speak on their point, the man who drag contradictive points from every statements even with evidence, the man who has been into personal branding by shouting, switching off the mic, and insulting the next person. the man who host the show where 60 % of guest either leave the conversation or end up with no conclusion and irritation , Is he really a debate maker or relation destroyer, he comes up with A debate topic and end up with Z . He ask question from mango and end up with grapes. Media is a healthy platform where decision takes place that have some conclusion on development its not a monopoly business firm where one speaks to prove him right in every case.

Me Criticize Facebook

8. Facebook has flat out declared war on privacy

Founder and CEO of Facebook, in defense of Facebook's privacy changes  last January: "People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that has evolved over time." More recently, in introducing the Open Graph API: "... the default is now social." Essentially, this means Facebook not only wants to know everything about you, and own that data, but to make it available to everybody. Which would not, by itself, necessarily be unethical, except that ...

7. Facebook is pulling a classic bait-and-switch

At the same time that they're telling developers how to access your data with new APIs, they are relatively quiet about explaining the implications of that to members. What this amounts to is a bait-and-switch. Facebook gets you to share information that you might not otherwise share, and then they make it publicly available. Since they are in the business of monetizing information about you for advertising purposes, this amounts to tricking their users into giving advertisers information about themselves. This is why Facebook is so much worse than Twitter in this regard: Twitter has made only the simplest (and thus, more credible) privacy claims and their customers know up front that all their tweets are public. It's also why the FTC is getting involved, and people are suing them (and winning).

Check out this excellent timeline from the EFF documenting the changes to Facebook's privacy policy.

6. Facebook is a bully

When Pete Warden demonstrated just how this bait-and-switch works (by crawling all the data that Facebook's privacy settings changes had inadvertently made public) they sued him. Keep in mind, this happened just before they announced the Open Graph API and stated that the "default is now social." So why sue an independent software developer and fledgling entrepreneur for making data publicly available when you're actually already planning to do that yourself? Their real agenda is pretty clear: they don't want their membership to know how much data is really available. It's one thing to talk to developers about how great all this sharing is going to be; quite another to actually see what that means in the form of files anyone can download and load into MatLab.

5. Even your private data is shared with applications

At this point, all your data is shared with applications that you install. Which means now you're not only trusting Facebook, but the application developers, too, many of whom are too small to worry much about keeping your data secure. And some of whom might be even more ethically challenged than Facebook. In practice, what this means is that all your data - all of it - must be effectively considered public, unless you simply never use any Facebook applications at all. Coupled with the OpenGraph API, you are no longer trusting Facebook, but the Facebook ecosystem.

4. Facebook is not technically competent enough to be trusted

Even if we weren't talking about ethical issues here, I can't trust Facebook's technical competence to make sure my data isn't hijacked. For example, their recent introduction of their "Like" button makes it rather easy for spammers to gain access to my feed and spam my social network. Or how about this gem for harvesting profile data ? These are just the latest of a series of Keystone Kops mistakes, such as accidentally making users' profiles completely public, or the cross-site scripting hole that took them over two weeks to fix. They either don't care too much about your privacy or don't really have very good engineers, or perhaps both.

3. Facebook makes it incredibly difficult to truly delete your account

It's one thing to make data public or even mislead users about doing so; but where I really draw the line is that, once you decide you've had enough, it'spretty tricky to really delete your account. They make no promises about deleting your data and every application you've used may keep it as well. On top of that, account deletion is incredibly (and intentionally) confusing. When you go to your account settings, you're given an option to deactivate your account, which turns out not to be the same thing as deleting it. Deactivating means you can still be tagged in photos and be spammed by Facebook (you actually have to opt out of getting emails as part of the deactivation, an incredibly easy detail to overlook, since you think you're deleting your account). Finally, the moment you log back in, you're back like nothing ever happened! In fact, it's really not much different from not logging in for awhile. To actually delete your account, you have to find a link buried in the on-line help (by "buried" I mean it takes five clicks to get there). Or you can just click here. Basically, Facebook is trying to trick their users into allowing them to keep their data even after they've "deleted" their account.

2. Facebook doesn't (really) support the Open Web

The so-called Open Graph API is named so as to disguise its fundamentally closed nature. It's bad enough that the idea here is that we all pitch in and make it easier than ever to help Facebook collect more data about you. It's bad enough that most consumers will have no idea that this data is basically public. It's bad enough that they claim to own this data and are aiming to be the one source for accessing it. But then they are disingenuous enough to call it "open," when, in fact, it is completely proprietary to Facebook. You can't use this feature unless you're on Facebook. A truly open implementation would work with whichever social network we prefer, and it would look something like OpenLike. Similarly, they implement just enough of OpenID to claim they support it, while aggressively promoting a proprietary alternative, Facebook Connect.

1. The Facebook application itself sucks

Between the farms and the mafia wars and the "top news" (which always guesses wrong - is that configurable somehow?) and the myriad privacy settings and the annoying ads (with all that data about me, the best they can apparently do is promote dating sites, because, uh, I'm single) and the thousands upon thousands of crappy applications, Facebook is almost completely useless to me at this point. Yes, I could probably customize it better, but the navigation is ridiculous, so I don't bother. (And, yet, somehow, I can't even change colors or apply themes or do anything to make my page look personalized.) Let's not even get into how slowly your feed page loads. Basically, at this point, Facebook is more annoying than anything else.

Me criticize Indian Media

As far as I can see, when I quietly sit and think about the question, an another question popped in my mind. Which profession in India isn't criticized ? When I scratch my head, apart from Indian Army, Navy and Air force, every profession in one way or other is criticized.

While few us might understand that every profession has it's challenges but most of us associate ourselves with one professional field and only notice about the criticism which people made about our profession.

I start with an example. One of my cousin had gone to a Bank as he had some work. The Bank employee was little late and my cousin got a little angry. Fortunately or unfortunately, he landed in bank job. Now, he generally criticizes the customers.

Moving on, I see that people always have a preconceived notion about every profession. Let's say, a government servant takes bribe or a Police Officials are not honest with their work, they generally creates trouble for the common people, Politicians are corrupt, Cricketers only play for money. This preconceived notion is just not about a profession but people are always like that who form their opinion about people from particular gender, region, religion and in your example, profession or any other such divisions.

Strictly speaking on Media, I will highlight few things about media in general and not categorically saying about Indian Media, Media like any other profession is business in true form. The Media works with money and to show news, you need to spend a lot of money to set up everything. Any company has investors and so will a Media company will have. They are backed by funds. Going into details, you will realize that any business relies on one big thing, that is Content. You see television, you have advertisements, you see sports - you have advertisements, you read a magazine - you have advertisements, you go to social media for Facebook - you see advertisements. Now, everything mentioned here can come under one category that is Content. Media, either print or television, is a Content related business. The investors need money as they have invested. Now, when these investors invests so much money, the same media channel cannot show any bad news about the people who are any way related to those people who have invested in the company. Apart from investors, there are many companies who show advertisements, which means that they are source of revenues, channels think on what they should telecast or what they shouldn't. I will give an example. Let's say I'm opening a company in ABCland in India. I'm also investor in a news Channel. I will make sure that no/very few bad news should be shown about that place. That would have a positive impact on my business as people would feel good about the place, population might increase and business will grow. In short, Media should be independent of everything but as Media has turned out into Business Houses, they just do what is in the interest of their company. Knowingly or unknowingly, we are often shown biased news. And since we have varied audience, a view will always be criticized by one section of society, our population is so large that even a small percent may criticize a particular Media section/news, the absolute numbers will be large and always be large.

And yeah, on a lighter note, Indian Media criticizes mostly(we may say it to be raising question in good words) about other professions, let the other professional people criticize the Indian Media to strike that balance. It's not about Media, people in general always complains, always criticizes and never stops. The percentage of good news is always less, the criticism and bad part always stay ahead. I and lot of other people understand that Media too works very hard.But hey, cheer up, every profession is criticized and Indian Media is one of them. :)

Me Criticize Aam Admi Party

You need a practical administration to govern and IMHO, AAP doesn't have one yet.

Ideology is great, rooting out corruption is a wonderful ideal to fight for. But you can not rule a country with single minded focus on avenging corruption.

I was always an AAP sceptic, but after the subsidised power stunt in Delhi, I am anti AAP. Coal and other natural resources cost real money. Users must pay for those. First find the money you say will be saved, by a reform of the 'corrupt' ESBs. Don't come up with random subsidies and get my country involved in a truck load of debt. First get the money. Then cut tariffs..

Development can not happen by fleecing the rich and giving to the not rich. Development is giving the poorest of the poor equal opportunities to become rich. And that won't happen by only rooting out corruption. There are lots of other issues, including how to best use our scarce reserves of coal and petroleum.

AAP appears to have a single point manifesto - get the corruption out of the system. But look at how much Kejriwal achieved in Delhi and what Nitish Kumar has done in Bihar. One is a true reformer, the other is a true leader.

I feel everyone has their place in a system. AAP's is in the opposition. They will control corruption and keep the government on their toes. But ask a bunch of ideologists to govern and mayhem ensues.

1) Swaraj : I think the concept of Swaraj and Mohalla Sabha is flawed. The idea of public participation for local issues and fund allocation based on that is difficult if not productive. Getting consensus in even a small group if very difficult so the idea that participatory democracy to the extent that people will get together and prioritize things may result in populism and ineffective decision making. It is tough enough to get consensus among 543 MPs to pass an important legislation so just imagine how difficult will be to take decisions locally - it is also important to consider the diversity in population, the level of literacy levels etc. We already have mechanisms for local representation e.g Panchayats in Village. If we go ahead to for e.g make the local police report to Mohalla Sabha - it will result in too much decentralization and there is a good chance that local strongmen and goons will start controlling these Mohalla Sabha. 

Apart from issues in legislation, control and decision making, organizing people in any form requires a lot of costs - so cost of having Mohalla Sabha's across the country will cost a lot.

2) Social Equality - The idea of social equality where you compare an auto driver with an industrialist and wonder why their difference in earnings is so wide is a bit naive. If you forcibly take money from the rich and distribute to the poor, you may end up benefiting no one. A lot of AAP thinking is around making people equal rather than providing equality of opportunity - there is a subtle difference. 

3) Victimization : The poor vs the rich, the minorities vs the majority, the tribals vs the capitalist, the aam aadmi vs the rich aadmi etc are recurrent themes where by the idea of victimization is institutionalized. There has been a gross generalization in this and this prevents AAP from taking rational stand in certain issues.

4) Gap vs Opportunity - The cost of a protest is sometimes bigger than the reason for protest. The world is not black and white - there is a shade of grey. If someone doesn't agree with you, rather than protesting, the right idea is to win them over. Kejriwal and AAP seem to look at the gaps in our system more than the opportunities and fail to realize that sometimes the opportunities when realized fill the gaps automatically.

Me Criticize Mr. Zakir Naik

It's not just his views on terror; Zakir Naik's teachings promote disharmony. But a ban won't help.
 

Does Dr Zakir Naik promote terrorism? On Thursday, the

NIA arrested memebr of the Islamic Research Foundation founded by Dr Naik, for having motivated kerela muslims to join Daesh. This allegation has yet to be proved. But Naik's lectures have cropped up in the background of other Daesh followers and terrorists.

In his lectures, Dr Zakir Naik doest not encourage terrorism  But his disapproval of it is never devoid of caveats.

Perhaps the strongest condemnation of terror came in his answer to an Indian who asked whether it was ok for him to resort to terrorist acts on finding all doors closed to him, including those of the courts, after incidents such as Gujarat and the Mumbai riots.

Most of Naik's Lengthy answers was spent expressing empathy for the questioner's feelings. Anyone would feel that way, said Naik, "unless he had worn bangles''. 

Only at the very end, he pointed out: "But you have the Quran, and the Quran prohibits the killing of innocents.''

The relief on the young man's face was palpable.

However, Naik has expressed support for Osama bin Laden as one who "terrorises the biggest terrorist, i.e. America''. This was before 9/11, but, as Naik's own words show, Osama was a terrorist even then. 

In the same answer, Naik compared a terrorist with a policeman who terrorizes a criminal.

Similarly, while declaring that he himself is against suicide bombing, he points out that other Islamic scholars approve of it as a war-time tactic. But some terrorist organisations proclaim that Muslims are always at war with the West, even with India.
 

Naik has always declared that Islam is the only true religion, hence no other religion can be allowed to be propagated in an Islamic country. A Muslim who converts and propagates another religion, even if it is atheism, deserves death. (This answer by Naik in 2010 to a Muslim in the Maldives who admitted to being an atheist, forced the police to whisk the man away for his own protection. He was imprisoned and finally recanted.)

In his celebrated lecture on the similarities between Islam and Hinduism, Naik quotes Hindu scripture only insofar as it matches the Quran in saying that there is just one formless God, and refers to Prophet Mohammed (according to Naik). The rest of Hindu scripture, he declares, is full of illogicalities.

On such views is based his advice to Muslims on living with other faiths.

Naik advises Muslims not to attend Ganpati pujas and eat prasad until their Hindu friends prove that Shiv and Ganesh are gods, which just can't be, he says, given the story of Ganesh's birth. 

I still recall his answer when asked to explain his claim that all subjects in his school - including science - would be taught from an Islamic perspective: "Sister, Islam is a scientific religion; Hinduism is irrational.''

Similarly, he advises Muslims not to wish Christians "Merry X'Mas'' as that would mean accepting that Christ was the "begotten son of God". To think that Allah could beget a child was a sure way to go to Hell.
 

The Taliban's destruction of the Bamyan Buddhas was aimed at "educating Buddhists about their own religion'', says Naik; the Buddha neither claimed to be god nor did he want his idols made.

Naik chides Muslim businessmen for caring more for their business than for Allah, because they do not try to convert their Hindu clients, for fear of losing them. Hence they do not fulfill their Islamic duty of inviting others to Islam.

Me criticize America

TV Lifestyle. The US is tied with the UK for most hours of TV watched per week: an average of 28 hours per person. That’s enough time to earn a kung fu black belt before the next presidential election.

Environmental Devastation. The US is having an impact on nature that can be described as nothing less than terraforming. Nearly half of the country’s lakes are too polluted to sustain fish. The US is 2nd in the world in C02 emissions, exceeding all nations of the European Union combined.

Air Pollution. Air pollution is linked to the deaths of 100,000 people per year. Most Americans are now breathing air that is dangerous for their health. In places where, a few decades ago, you could stand in a city and see mountain ranges in the distance, now you can see only the orange gleam of the smoggy night sky.

Cult of Personality. Americans are completely obsessed with celebrities. The most obscure, personal details of actresses or musicians are splayed across front pages. There is now a whole class of people who make a living as professional celebrities. Now, even political campaigns are harnessing the unmitigated adoration that Americans have for their fancy people.

Unwanted Pregnancy. Regardless of your stance on abortion, we can probably all be upset that by age 45, half of American women have had an unintended pregnancy and a third of them have chosen to terminate it.

Divorce. While figures on divorce have been overblown, the fact remains that the US has the highest divorce rate in the world. Divorce is associated with health and financial issues and is devastating for children.

Drug Abuse. Americans lead the world in the use of illegal drugs like cocaine and heroin, and in toxic legal ones like tobacco. Alcohol is the only exception. After spending a trillion dollars and imprisoning millions of people in the War on Drugs, the US government has failed to have any noticeable impact on the skyrocketing popularity of drugs.

Racism. Large portions of America were built on the backs of African slaves (or over the bodies of Native Americans). A century after they had been set free, black US citizens still lived in fear of suddenly being beaten, imprisoned, or even lynched. Today, most Americans still harbor explicitly racist sentiments toward blacks and Hispanics.

Discrimination. The US is shockingly unequal. The average white American household earns 64% more than its black counterpart. The government has robbed the church of its moral authority, leading to intrusive and inconsistent laws about marriage contracts. Though things are improving for female professionals, they still earn only 81% of what they would if they were male.

Body Shame. Hannah Lobel writes: “Short of burning obese people in effigy, it’s hard to imagine how we could stigmatize fat more in this culture.” Most commercially-produced images of humans in America are heavily edited, creating a standard of beauty that is physically impossible to attain. The psychological damage of constant exposure to this standard is catastrophic.

Rape. The objectification of human beings is fueling a rape epidemic. The US has the highest number of reported rapes in the world. A recent study suggests that nearly 1 in 5 American women are sexually assaulted. College and grade school are particularly dangerous.

Crime. America has the highest reported crime rate in the world. The annual murder rate is 4.7 per 100,000 – a figure that is unthinkable in other developed countries.

Me criticize on Kashmir issue

Kashmir is a major point of contention

Kashmir is on fire again, after militants killed 18 Indian soldiers in an early morning raid on Sept. 18. These five facts explain why the conflict over this long-disputed region between India and Pakistan is such a deep-seated problem, and why it’s likely to get worse before it gets better.

1. Clashes Over Kashmir

A large part of the India-Pakistan rivalry centers on competing claims over the Kashmir region. This relatively small piece of land in the Himalayas has been disputed since 1947, the year the modern state of Pakistan was created. Pakistan claims the land because it’s majority Muslim like itself; India claims the land because Kashmir’s Maharajah once pledged loyalty to India (albeit under duress). India doesn’t want to give the region up for fear of setting a dangerous precedent for India’s other regions that are agitating for independence. While both countries claim all of Kashmir, each of them controls only part of it.

2. Bloody Weekend

Besides the 18 soldiers who died in the Sept. 18 raid, four of the militants were killed in the subsequent shootout. While Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi refrained from pointing the finger directly at Pakistan, other senior Indian military officials weren’t nearly as diplomatic, accusing a Pakistan-backed group of the mayhem.

But the violence in Indian-administered Kashmir doesn’t always originate from Pakistan. That’s because there are plenty of locals with grievances against India’s stewardship. While the Hindu Jammu section of Kashmir seems to be content with remaining a part of India, the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley favors independence from anywhere between 75 to 95 percent, according to a 2010 study. A prominent Kashmiri militant was killed by Indian forces in July, touching off mass protests and a wave of violence that left nearly 90 people dead. But Indian officials seem fixated on Pakistan for the moment.

3. Stalling Reforms

That makes sense from a political perspective. Modi rose to power as a pragmatic business reformer—he still enjoys a Putin-like 81 percent favourability rating, and 65 percent of Indians believe the country is headed in the right direction. Just 29 percent said that in 2013. But it getting harder to buoy those numbers as the low-hanging reform fruit gets picked off the tree.

According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Modi began his term in 2014 with an ambitious list of at least 30 major, much-needed reforms in the areas of taxation, government regulation, and foreign investment among others. Of those 30, seven have been completed and 14 are in progress or partially successful; nine remain outstanding. The reforms that have been implemented are a big reason why India is now the fastest-growing major economy in the world.

But Modi doesn’t have the leverage in parliament to deliver any more significant reforms as the country gears up for regional elections. And he can’t look weak when Indian soldiers are killed—particularly after winning an election with charges that the previous government was soft on terrorism and weak on Pakistan. His government needs to adopt a tougher line to keep core supporters on board ahead of coming provincial elections and the next national elections in a couple of years.

4. Fragile Pakistan

Pakistan, meanwhile, continues to deny involvement in the weekend’s violence. Pakistan knows that it’s in a weakened position compared to India. Pakistan may have the 11th-strongest military in the world, according to an analysis conducted by Credit Suisse, but that same ranking has the Indian military in 5th place. 66-year old Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is in poor health, and the country ranks as the 14th most “fragile” country (an aggregate measure of political, social and economic stability) for 2015. India ranks 70th.

Sharif has spent UN General Assembly week trying to rally world leaders to Pakistan’s side and internationalize the conflict, reaching out to the U.S., U.K., Japan and Turkey, but early returns have not been promising. In Ban Ki Moon’s farewell address, Kashmir didn’t even get a mention among the world’s largest geopolitical challenges. Pakistan cannot afford to take on India over Kashmir, and it knows it.

5. China’s Shadow

Which is why Pakistan is angling itself toward China, the only country on the continent with a population, economy, and military that top India’s? China has agreed to spend $46 billion in investment in Pakistan, which is also the world’s largest recipient of weapons from China. China also builds Pakistan’s nuclear reactors. These are ties that bind.

China remains an important trade partner to India, too. But Indians are wary of China and seeking partners to balance China’s growing clout. Some 48 percent of Indians say that China’s relationship with Pakistan is a very serious problem; another 21 percent of Indians say it’s somewhat serious. China’s growing military power elicits roughly the same response from Indians, as well. Wariness of China has led India to strengthen ties with the U.S. and other Asian countries.

The bottom-line: Until recent weeks, relations between India and Pakistan seemed to be warming. Recent events in Kashmir, and the search for new allies, reveal that they’re as chilly as ever.