Facebook Listens?
In May 2014 Facebook announced they would be rolling out an "Identify TV and Music" feature that would allow users who access the social media platform through their cell phones to identify and tag music or television programs playing in their area. When a user begins to compose a status update, Facebook will activate the phone's microphone, filter out live conversations, and try to detect and identify audio programming. If a matching song is found, Facebook will include a sample of the music in the status; if a matching television program is found, Facebook will label the specific season and episode "so you can avoid any spoilers": announced When writing a status update  if you choose to turn the feature on  you'll have the option to use your phone's microphone to identify what song is playing or what show or movie is on TV. That means if you want to share that you're listening to your favorite Beyonc track or watching the season premiere of Game of Thrones, you can do it quickly and easily, without typing. If you share music, your friends can see a 30-second preview of the song. For TV shows, the story in News Feed will highlight the specific season and episode youre watching, so you can avoid any spoilers and join in conversations with your friends after you've caught up. Facebook said the digital fingerprinting feature would be opt-in only, meaning users would have to give the program permission to start. Once activated, an icon on the face of the phone would indicate that the microphone was active and the phone was listening. Users who opted in could still choose to turn off the feature on a post-by-post basis. (Audio fingerprinting would only be available in the United States and only via iOS and Android mobile apps; it would not function if Facebook were accessed through a browser.)   Facebook's announcement was later updated to address rumors that the new app would listen in on, and store, user conversations: Myth: The feature listens to and stores your conversations. Fact: Nope, no matter how interesting your conversation, this feature does not store sound or recordings. Facebook isn't listening to or storing your conversations. Here's how it works: if you choose to turn the feature on, when you write a status update, the app converts any sound into an audio fingerprint on your phone. This fingerprint is sent to our servers to try and match it against our database of audio and TV fingerprints. By design, we do not store fingerprints from your device for any amount of time. And in any event, the fingerprints can't be reversed into the original audio because they don't contain enough information. Myth: Facebook is always listening using your microphone. Fact: Nope, if you choose to turn this feature on, it will only use your microphone (for 15 seconds) when you're actually writing a status update to try and match music and TV. Two years later, a similar rumor erupted, holding that Facebook was listening to user conversations in order to better target advertising and content to them. rumor  Griffin, Andrew.  "Facebook Is Using Smartphones To Listen To What People Say, Professor Suggests."
  The Independent.  31May 2016. Hill, Kashmir.  "Facebook Wants To Listen in on What You're Doing."
  Forbes.  22 May 2014. Kleinman, Zoe.  "Facebook 'Listening' Claim Denied By Professor"
  BBC.  3June2016. Tate, Ryan.  "Facebook Will Soon Detect What You're Watching and Listening To."
  Wired.  21 May 2014. Tate, Ryan.  "Why Facebook Spent a Year Learning to Listen in on Your TV Shows."
  Wired.  22 May 2014. Facebook Newsroom.  "Facebook Does Not Use Your Phones Microphone for Ads or News Feed Stories."
  2 June 2016.
For all the advances since the era of teased-out rocker hair, one thing hasnt changed for Americas average working man: the amount of bacon he brings home. So says Rana Foroohar, a CNN global economic analyst andTimemagazine assistant managing editor (who, by the way,snagged thefirst interviewwith new Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen). Appearing on CNNsThe Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer,Foroohar brought up the point during a general discussion about the countrys economic woes. You know, I have to jump in on this because we are living in a time when the corporate share of the overall economic pie is as high as it has been in decades, Foroohar said. Meanwhile, the median male worker in this country has not seen a raise, inflation-adjusted, for 30 years, basically. Foroohars eye-popping statistic about median male worker income is certainly interesting. We wanted to know if it is correct. Comparing 1982-2012 TheU.S. Census Bureauproved a go-to source. The bureaus Septemberreporton income, poverty and health insurance coverage in 2012 contains text and tables outlining historical changes (or lack thereof) in earnings for both men and women. Foroohar referenced median earnings, which experts say is a better measure than the average because the income difference between the countrys rich and working-class earners is stark. In 2012, the latest year for which data is available, the median full-time, year-round male worker earned $49,398. In 1982, exactly 30 years earlier, earnings in 2012 dollars were $48,152. So from 1982 to 2012, there was actually an inflation-adjusted raise of $1,246.But thats more because Foroohar is looking at two years in isolation. Tracking the income of median male workers over time shows that incomes climbed steeply from 1960 to 1970. But the figure has ebbed and flowed and remained mostly stagnant since 1970, dipping as low as $46,841 in 1996 and reaching a high of $51,670 in 1973. (You canview the tableon page 50 of the report.) Point being:You could just as easily widen or shrink Foroohars 30-year window by a few years and find a number that supports her point. Median earnings of the 2012 male worker are down compared to his counterpart 25 years ago (who earned $50,166 in 1987), 35 years ago ($50,480 in 1977) or 40 years ago ($50,074 in 1970). Even though Foroohars window shows a 2.6 percent pay increase between 1982 and 2012, its really pretty close to flat, said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. It means that male median earnings increases just 0.085 percent per year (that is, 85 one-thousandths of a percentage point per year), he said. Some say men are even worse off Foroohars larger point, while technically correct and oft-repeated, misses the larger economic picture and is actually too generous, argues Michael Greenstone, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Greenstone co-authored a2012New York Timespostwith Brookings fellow Adam Looney that presented another way to examine median male wages. Instead of counting only the earnings of men with jobs, as the Census Bureau does, Greenstone factored in all working-age men. Factoring in men without jobs brings down the median income. The fraction of men in the workforce has declined sharply over the last several decades, he wrote, from 94 percent of prime-age men working in 1970 to 81 percent in 2010. It happened as incarceration rates and enrollment in the Social Security disability insurance program increased and labor force participation waned, as well as the wild success of women entering the labor market, he said. His 2012 study found real earnings of median males actually dropped by 19 percent since 1970, he found. This means that the median man in 2010 earned as much as the median man did in 1964  nearly a half century ago. The reasons for the trend are complex, Greenstone told us. Yes, there have been sweeping changes in technology, machinery and trade over the last 30 or 40 years that have had some effect. More striking, he said, is that educational attainment among men, which used to climb with each generation, has dropped off. The decline in working is concentrated among the men who have lower levels of education, Greenstone said. Its not concentrated among the college-grad guy who is married to a super successful woman. Michael Saltsman of the conservative Employment Policies Institute also argued the idea of stagnant wages is more controversial than it seems -- to a different end. He cited a 2012study in the National Tax Journalthat analyzed middle-class income from the past three cycles. Instead of using pre-tax income data, the researchers expanded the income definition to include taxes, income transfers and fringe benefits. Middle-class Americans are found to have made substantial gains, and these increases are even larger when including non-cash income, such as the ex-ante value of health insurance, the report says. Meanwhile, the earnings of female workers isnt cited as often as a metric of the economy because their participation in the workforce jumped sharply over the last 50 years. In any case, the 2012 full-time, year-round median female worker earned $37,791, according to census figures. In 1982, when about half as many women were working, median earnings were $29,731. Our ruling Foroohar said, the median male worker in this country has not seen a raise, inflation-adjusted, for 30 years, basically. Federal data for 1982-2012 shows a slight increase, though the numbers show the real value of median male earnings have been in the range of $46,840-$51,670 for about 40 years. We found another point of view that says the real median income has declined significantly once men without jobs are factored in. We also found a broader definition of income that changes the dynamic. Still, Foroohar clearly has a point. We rate her claim Mostly True. Claim:  President Obama signed an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company, with no financial gain for the U.S. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] This is a perfect example why many refrain from watching the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC. Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following: "Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil!  The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA! Now here's the real clincher... the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil". We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! Wait, it gets more interesting. Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks! Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this. Is this the kind of "transparency" you want from your government? Below is the Wall street Journal article to confirm this. Wall Street Journal editorial Wall Street Journal editorial Origins:  The above-quoted article references a segment attributed to Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck criticizing President Obama for signing an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company to finance offshore drilling, all without securing reciprocal oil exports from Brazil or any other benefit to the U.S.   Nearly all of the substantive claims made in that article are false, as detailed below:  [President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order.  On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development. Ex-Im preliminary approval The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush. Despite the claim that the money committed to Petrobras is "taxpayer dollars," Ex-Im notes that "the vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders," that "the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress," and that "the Bank's activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime."    We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! This statement is also false, one predicated on the mistaken assumption that the only tangible financial benefit of lending money to Petrobras was to guarantee a supply of Brazilian oil for the United States.  The Ex-Im's mission statement declares: mission statement The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States. Ex-Im Bank's mission is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. companies  large and small  to turn export opportunities into real sales that help to maintain and create U.S. jobs and contribute to a stronger national economy. Accordingly, as set forth in a 29 July 2009 press release, Ex-Im's chairman and president, Fred P. Hochberg, declared that the bank approved the $2 billion preliminary commitment not as a downpayment to ensure future oil purchases from Brazil by the U.S., but "to encourage purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras": press release I chose Brazil as my first international destination for good reason: Brazil is a powerhouse among South American economies and offers tremendous opportunities for U.S. exporters in many sectors. I want Brazilians to know that Ex-Im Bank has the will and the capacity to finance their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services. (Although Fred P. Hochberg is an Obama appointee, the President did not nominate Hochberg for the position of Ex-Im president until 20 April 2009, a week after the board approved the loan to Petrobras.) nominate    The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil. China does have an agreement to buy Brazilian oil from Petrobras, but not literally to purchase the entire output of Brazilian offshore oil fields.  In May 2009, the China Development Bank (CDB) agreed to lend Petrobras $10 billion (five times the amount of the Ex-Im loan); in exchange, "the two sides agreed to increase actual crude oil exports from Brazil to China." At the same time, Petrobras and Sinopec (the China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation) signed a separate long-term export agreement providing for  Petrobras to export 200,000 barrels of oil to China per day from 2010 to 2019. agreed    Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. Billionaire financier George Soros has donated large sums of money to groups that support the goals of the Democratic Party (including an estimated $23.5 million towards defeating the re-election effort of President George W. Bush in 2004),  and his hedge fund (Soros Fund Management LLC) does hold stock in Petrobras.  However, the implication that President Obama unilaterally directed the issuance of a loan to Petrobras as quid pro quo repayment to George Soros is erroneous since, as noted above, the loan was approved and made by a Republican-majority board of Ex-Im officials who had been appointed by  George W. Bush. Soros' hedge-fund firm  sold off 5 million of its 37 million Petrobras shares in May 2009, and the firm sold off another 22 million shares in August 2009, before Petrobras received any loan funds from Ex-Im. sold sold   In a letter published by the Wall Street Journal on 21 August 2009, Ex-Im president Fred P. Hochberg refuted the criticisms expressed in that newspapers' editorial of three days earlier: Your editorial "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling" (Aug. 18) more correctly should have read, "Obama Underwrites U.S. Jobs." That's because the mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that. That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that  American  not foreign   workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years. Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards. We make no grants. The vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders, not Ex-Im Bank direct loans. The foreign buyers that use Ex-Im Bank products pay us in full. Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. At a time when jobs, and exports, are more important than ever in helping our economy recover, Ex-Im Bank is achieving its mission to keep Americans working, and we're doing it without burdening the U.S. taxpayer. Additional information:  Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans  Last updated:  10 February 2010 Another celebrity death hoax reared its head in July 2016, then again in March 2017, and yet again in July 2018, as posts circulated on Facebook sharing the news that British actor and comedian Rowan Atkinson, best known for playing the character Mr. Bean on television and in movies, was dead, having committed suicide or died in a traffic accident at age 58:    Clue #1 that the information is false: In the viral graphic, Atkinson's birth year was given as 1995. If true, that would put him in his twenties. Clue #2 that the information is false: In the viral graphic, Atkinson's age was given as 58. In reality, he was 62 at the time (as of 2017), having been born in 1955. Clue #3 that the information is false: Nowhere, in any legitimate media, has it been reported that Rowan Atkinson passed away.    In fact, Atkinson is currently starring in the third installment of the Johnny English comedy film series, to be released in October 2018: starring  The errors and inconsistencies in the hoax reports of his death are attributable to the fact that a virtually identical hoax has circulated before and has been repurposed, with little or no attention to detail, in 2016 and thereafter. The most important thing to know about it is that the hoax is also a "clickjacking" scam. If you click on the blurb expecting to see a video or get more information, what you will find instead is that you have been redirected to another website that will attempt to get you to share your personal info, request access to your Facebook account, demand that you fill out a survey before proceeding, or all of the above. In April 2020, Facebook posts circulating online offered coupons supposedly good for two free large pizzas from the Domino's pizza chain:  Users who clicked on the offer were taken to an external website where they were instructed to answer survey questions in order to receive their coupons:  After completing the questionnaire, however, users were then required to click a button to share the "offer" with their Facebook friends before they could retrieve their coupons. Those who complied by spamming their friends were then allowed to click a "Receive the Coupon" button, but there was no actual coupon to receive. Like innumerable other "free merchandise" offers on Facebook, this offer was another variation of a common scam. other free merchandise offers Facebook We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers Around 5 p.m. EDT on March 16, 2021, a 21-year-old white man allegedly shot and killed eight people -- six of whom were Asian women -- at three Atlanta-area spas. The investigation into the mass shooting remained ongoing, as of this report. allegedly shot and killed investigation As word of the tragedy spread online, however, people flooded social media with messages of sympathy for the deceased. Many posts classified them as unknowing victims of the country's increasing xenophobia, given a surge of attacks against Asian Americans that coincided with the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S, or pervasive violence against women. surge of attacks Among such posters was Aaron Rupar, a journalist at Vox. A couple of hours after the incident, for instance, he blamed former U.S. President Donald Trump's characterization of the coronavirus as a reason for growing hate crimes against Asian Americans, and tweeted: Vox tweeted "[I] don't think it's a coincidence that Trump spent the better part of a year using a virus as a slur against Chinese people while hate crimes against Asian Americans spiked by 150 percent." Rupar was referring to Trump's repeated insistence on calling the coronavirus the "Chinese virus" -- going against widely accepted public health guidelines that warn against titling disease outbreaks after nations or regions of the world to eliminate stigmatization -- and 2020 hate crime statistics in 16 U.S. cities compiled by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University. repeated insistence guidelines 2020 hate crime statistics About 20 minutes later, Rupar added:   The underlying claim was true  as authorities in the Atlanta area embarked on a manhunt to catch the suspect on the evening of March 16, Trump referred to the coronavirus as the "China virus" on Fox News. a manhunt to catch the suspect But let this be clear: No evidence explicitly connected the former president's use of the term on national television with the tragedy unfolding simultaneously in Georgia. Furthermore, it was unclear whether he was even aware of the mass shooting when he said "China virus" while talking about unrelated matters -- specifically, his presidential administration's approach to the American economy. The interviewer did not ask him about the Atlanta-are shooting. Here's what happened: Between roughly 6 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. EDT, according to The Associated Press, the victims' bodies were reported inside massage parlors, and authorities arrested the suspected gunman -- Robert Aaron Long, of Woodstock, Georgia -- as he was driving on the interstate. Meanwhile, at 7 p.m. EDT, Trump called in for a phone interview with Fox News' Maria Bartiromo, a recording of which Snopes obtained via the media outlet's website and is displayed below. Maria Bartiromo Throughout much of the interview, the former president lambasted his successor's approach to immigration, criticized election security, and took credit for the ongoing efforts to provide COVID-19 vaccinations to every American willing to get one. Then, at approximately the 5-minute mark, he said: immigration COVID-19 [The economy] was recovering under my administration -- twice. We got it to a level that the world has never seen before. We were the envy of the world and then when we got hit by the, as I call it, 'the China virus' -- COVID -- it obviously went down along with every other economy. And then we were the first to get it back up. You can watch the segment here: If you or someone you know is experiencing a mental health, suicide or substance use crisis or emotional distress, reach out 24/7 to the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline (formerly known as the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline) by dialing or texting 988 or using chat services atsuicidepreventionlifeline.orgto connect to a trained crisis counselor.  suicidepreventionlifeline.org In August 2021, remarkable footage of a daring rescue re-emerged online, prompting interest from readers about its authenticity and origins.  On Aug. 12, a post on the popular forum Reddit carried the title "Firefighter snatches suicide jumper out of mid air" and included the 20-second video, which although not graphic, shows an interrupted suicide attempt and thus might be upsetting to some readers: post   The footage was entirely authentic and really did show a firefighter, leaning out of a window while being supported by his colleague, catch a suicidal woman who had fallen or jumped from the floor above. As a result, we are issuing a rating of  The incident took place in May 2018 in Riga, the capital city of the Baltic nation of Latvia. According to an official account posted by Valsts ugunsdzsbas un glbanas dienests (the national Latvian State Fire and Rescue Service or SFRS), the firefighters responded to an emergency call from the apartment building in question, about a woman on the fourth floor who appeared to be contemplating suicide.  official account Fearing that she might jump out of the window if they attempted to rescue her from inside her apartment, some of the firefighters set up on the floor below, while others went on the roof and attempted to lower mountaineering equipment in order to secure the woman. It's not entirely clear whether the woman ultimately jumped or fell from the fourth-floor window sill, and the SFRS statement noted that her fingers were observed to be "slipping." On the third floor, Tomas Jaunzems leaned out of the window while his colleague, Boriss Rutkovskis, braced Jaunzems' legs and helped stabilize him against the window ledge. As the video shows, Jaunzems ultimately caught the falling woman and, with the help of Rutkovskis, carried her inside to safety. The Latvian Interior Ministry later awarded the two men medals for "selflessness" and "heroic actions," as shown below: awarded  From left to right: Head of the SFRS Oskars boli; SFRS firefighter Tomas Jaunzems; SFRS firefighter Boriss Rutkovskis; Latvian Interior Minister Rihards Kozlovskis. Photo: SFRS  The authenticity of the video footage is further confirmed by the fact that the SFRS itself posted the clip to Facebook on May 31, 2018. posted the clip to Facebook On Jan. 14, 2023, media personality Megyn Kelly posted a meme to her Twitter account about Prince Harry and King Charles III that was originally created as a joke, but some onlookers appeared to take it seriously. posted Prince Harry and King Charles III  (Screenshot, @megynkelly Twitter page) The tweet contained an image of Harry and a fake quote about his father, Charles, supposedly from his memoir, "Spare," which published in January 2023. "When I was a child my father grabbed my nose then pulled away with his thumb between his fingers saying 'I've got you're [sic] nose' I thought I had been badly disfigured, the torment I suffered haunts me to this day," the fake quote says. Author Sherry Morris appeared to take the tweet at face value, and the meme appeared in Snopes' inbox of tips from readers for fact-checking: appeared to take the tweet Snopes' inbox of tips  "My dad did that. It was funny. I understood he didn't really have my nose. Good grief I hope his father didn't ask him to pull his finger," Morris tweeted. A couple of things point to the quote being fake and not having come from a published book, namely the misspelling of "your" and the bad punctuation. The image also contains a watermark that says "Belfast Mafia," which is a Facebook account that posts satirical and humorous memes. The account first shared the meme on Jan. 10. Facebook account shared the meme on Jan. 10 It wasn't the only meme of its kind by Belfast Mafia. Using the same image of Harry, the page made asimilarpiece of satirewith a fake quote about him supposedly being traumatized by his older brother William reaching behind him and tapping him on the shoulder. similar [See also on Snopes:Did the BBC Describe Prince Harry's Book as 'Weirdest Book' Written by a Royal?] Did the BBC Describe Prince Harry's Book as 'Weirdest Book' Written by a Royal? Palma, Bethania. "Did the BBC Describe Prince Harry's Book as 'Weirdest Book' Written by a Royal?" Snopes, 13 Jan. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-the-bbc-describe-prince-harrys-book-as-weirdest-book-written-by-a-royal/. "Prince Harry's Spare Becomes Fastest-Selling Non-Fiction Book Ever." Guinness World Records, 13 Jan. 2023, https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2023/1/prince-harrys-spare-becomes-fastest-selling-non-fiction-book-ever-732915. Yes, the unemployment rate is still high. But those without a college degree are hurting even more, according to President Barack Obama, who was in Austin last week to raise money for fellow Democrats. Now, I know some folks argue that as we emerge from the worst recession since the Great Depression, my administration should focus solely on economic issues, he said during a side speech at the University of Texas at Austin on Aug. 9. But as I said the other week to the National Urban League, education is an economic issue. It may be the economic issue of our time. Its an economic issue when the unemployment rate for folks whove never gone to college is almost double what it is for those who have. Almost double? Matt Lehrich, a White House spokesman, pointed us to employment data kept by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Looking at labor force statistics from the Current Population Survey, the unemployment rate for those with at least a bachelor's degree was 4.5 percent in July 2010, while 10.1 percent of high school graduates who didn't attend college were without jobs. Add those who never graduated from high school, and the unemployment rate creeps up to 11 percent. That's more than double the unemployment rate for Americans with a bachelor's, master's, doctorate or professional degree. Include those who attend attended some college or earned an associates degree, and the jobless rate for the college crowd is 6 percent. So, as of July, the unemployment rate for those who never went to college is almost double what it is for those who have. How did the two unemployment rates shake out historically? The data during the last two years show similar ratios. In 2009, on average, about 10.9 percent of those who never attended college were unemployed, while 6.1 percent of those with at least some college were unemployed. In 2008, the unemployment rate was 6.4 percent for those without college, and about 3.1 for those who had. We rate Obama's statement as True. In November 2019, we received multiple inquiries about the accuracy of claims that U.S. President Donald Trump had been fined $2 million by a New York court because he was found to have "stolen" charitable donations intended for military veterans.  For example, former Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate Qasim Rashid tweeted on several occasions in November 2019 that Trump had "stolen" $2.8 million in charitable donations from veterans, and that he had admitted as much in court: tweeted several occasions The President stole $2.8M in charity from Veterans & spent it on himself & admits to his crime in court documents. As you speak of honor & serviceWhere is your accountability of a President who trampled on both? Why are you silent Rep @RobWittman?#VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP @RobWittman #VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP  Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) November 11, 2019 November 11, 2019   One of Rashid's tweets was later reposted in the form of a meme by the Facebook page Act.tv. (The meme was later deleted): tweets meme   Another widely shared meme claimed, "It is a fact that draft dodger Trump stole charitable cash donations that were meant for our veterans":   These social media posts and memes grossly misrepresented the facts surrounding a November 2019 settlement agreement between the New York Attorney General, on one hand, and the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Trump himself, and his children Ivanka and Eric, on the other hand.  Trump did not "steal" charitable donations intended for veterans, nor did he admit as much in court. All the donations intended for veterans charities ended up going to veterans charities. However, Trump's 2016 presidential campaign did direct and benefit from the manner in which many of those donations were distributed to the charities.  The claims were related to a lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General's office in June 2018 against the Trump Foundation, the president, and Ivanka and Eric Trump, in their capacity as board directors of the charity. We've written about the case in detail in a previous fact check. fact check In her June 2018 petition to the state's Supreme Court, then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood wrote: wrote "For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York State charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. One of the examples of "improper political activity" cited in the lawsuit related to a January 2016 fundraiser that the Trump Foundation and Trump's presidential election campaign jointly operated.  In January 2016, days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump complained of unfair treatment by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and announced he would be boycotting the next Republican primary debate and instead host a fundraiser for veterans' charities in Iowa.  announced The event raised around $5.6 million, with roughly half going to the Trump Foundation, and half going directly to specific veterans charities. The Trump campaign directed the distribution of funds to recipient charities, and Trump himself repeatedly presented checks at campaign rallies and more broadly used the distribution of funds to boost his presidential campaign.  On the basis of those allegations, Underwood requested several outcomes, including asking the court to "dissolve the Foundation for its persistently illegal conduct, enjoin its board members from future service as a director of any not-for-profit authorized by New York law, to obtain restitution and penalties, and to direct the Foundation to cooperate with the Attorney General in the lawful distribution of its remaining assets to qualified charitable entities. The parties to the lawsuit spent around a year negotiating a settlement. In December 2018, for example, all sides agreed that the Foundation would be dissolved and its assets distributed to a list of mutually agreed charities.  agreed In November 2019, the New York Supreme Court published the final settlement. As part of that settlement between the parties, Trump, his children and the Foundation stipulated to (agreed upon) a set of facts, among them the following section related to the Iowa veterans fundraiser: settlement The website for the Iowa Fundraiser, DonaldTrumpForVets.com, was developed by campaign personnel and, with the agreement of the Foundation, featured the name of the Foundation at the top of the home page and informed visitors that "the Donald J. Trump Foundation is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization"; The campaign planned, organized and paid for the Iowa Fundraiser, with administrative assistance from the Foundation; and the campaign directed the timing, amounts and recipients of the Foundation's grants to charitable organizations supporting military veterans; The Iowa Fundraiser raised approximately $5.6 million in donations for veterans groups, of which $2.823 million was contributed to the Foundation; the balance was contributed by donors directly to various veterans' groups. At Campaign events in Iowa on January 30, January 31, and February 1, 2016, Mr. Trump personally displayed presentation copies of Foundation checks to Iowa veterans' groups. On May 31, 2016, at a Campaign press conference, Mr. Trump announced the grants the Foundation made to veterans' groups with the proceeds of the Iowa Fundraiser and, on or about the same day, the Campaign posted on its website a chart identifying the grant recipients. The New York Attorney General's office objected to the way in which the Trump Foundation had been used to advance the interests of the Trump campaign, and especially the way in which the campaign dictated how more than half of the funds were to be distributed, with Trump at times personally handing out checks at campaign rallies. The Attorney General's Office did not object on the grounds that Trump, his children, or his foundation, had stolen or kept the money.  Indeed, in an order accompanying the November 2019 settlement, New York Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla wrote that: wrote The Attorney General has argued that I should award damages for waste of the entire $2,823,000 that was donated directly to the Foundation at the Fundraiser. In opposition, Mr. Trump notes that the Foundation ultimately disbursed all of the Funds to charitable organizations and that he has sought to resolve consensually this proceeding. As stated above, I find that the $2,823,000 raised at the Fundraiser was used for Mr. Trumps political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trumps campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation, in violation of [New York law]. However, taking into consideration that the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans, I award damages on the breach of fiduciary duty/waste claim against Mr. Trump in the amount of $2,000,000, without interest, rather than the entire $2,823,000 sought by the Attorney General. [Emphasis added]. Trump was ordered to pay $2 million to a list of agreed-upon charities as damages for the waste incurred by the fact that his political campaign orchestrated and benefited from distributing around $2.8 million in donations to veterans groups. (That $2 million in damages was separate from the roughly $1.7 million the Trump Foundation had already agreed to distribute to various charities, as part of the resolution dissolving the Foundation.) Neither Trump, nor his children, nor his charity, were found to have "stolen" or kept the funds, and so none "admitted" to such actions (as Rashid falsely claimed in his tweets). The New York Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that all the funds raised from the January 2016 Iowa event did ultimately end up with veterans groups.  The irony in those claims was that it was, in fact, the manner in which the Trump Foundation and Trump campaign colluded in distributing the donations to veterans charities that landed the president in hot water, not his having "stolen" the donations.  Mac Guill, Dan. "Did New York Reprimand Trump Family for 'Stealing From a Children's Cancer Charity'?"
 Snopes.com. 31 October 2019. Underwood, Barbara D. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Verified Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 14 June 2018. Shane III, Leo. "Donald Trump to Skip GOP Debate, Hold Fundraiser for Wounded Troops Instead."
 Military Times. 26 January 2016. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation Concerning the Dissolution of the Donald J. Trump Foundation."
  19 December 2018. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation of Final Settlement."
  7 November 2019. Scarpulla, Saliann. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Decision and Order On Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 7 November 2019. Who is the woman in a viral photo with former President Bill Clinton? She's a photographer and co-founder of a New York-based modeling agency. But if you pose that question to adherents of a Qanon conspiracy theory, you'll probably get a different answer: She's an associate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and recruits children to come to the billionaire's island. Qanon conspiracy theory So how did this ordinary citizen get mixed up in the world of Q? It started with a single miscaptioned photograph that supposedly showed her on Epstein's private plane with Clinton:   While this appears to be a genuine, unaltered photograph, the conspiracy theorists spreading it get several things wrong about what it shows. Mainly, the photograph wasn't taken on a plane owned by Epstein, who was charged with new sex crimes related to child-sex-trafficking for prostitution in the summer of 2019.  Before we go any further, we should note that the Q conspiracy theory is built on speculation and wild assumptions. The woman has not been implicated in any legal proceedings related to Epstein, and she has not been charged with any crimes herself (Snopes is not identifying her to protect her privacy). Q conspiracy theory Indeed, Miami Herald reporter Julie Brown, who was fundamental in uncovering Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking crimes, told us that she never come across the woman's name during her investigation into Epstein: "I have never run across her name anywhere  and I checked with two people involved in the case for 12 years and they never heard of her. They suspect its BS internet conspiracy shit."  Julie Brown fundamental We also dug through dozens of Q posts, conspiracy primers, Qanon explainers, and 4chan and 8chan threads attempting to connect her to Clinton and Epstein, but we've yet to see any concrete evidence. Instead, we found invented explanations for out-of-context pictures and illogical leaps of faith being accepted as fact.  The above-displayed picture has been online since 2006. It was originally shared with a caption saying it showed Clinton with a 19-year-old college student aboard billionaire venture capitalist Ron Burkle's private plane. It wasn't until several years later (circa 2017) that the "Pizzagate" conspiracy community picked up this picture and started claiming that it showed a woman with Clinton aboard Epstein's plane (popularly dubbed the "Lolita Express"). The fact that this photograph was circulating for more than a decade before it became attached to claims relating to Epstein should immediately raise red flags.  shared billionaire venture capitalist circa 2017 Pizzagate Furthermore, photographs reportedly showing the inside of Epstein's plane don't appear to match with this viral picture. Here's a comparison of the viral Clinton photograph and a picture of Epstein's plane obtained by Radar Online: inside of Epstein's plane Radar Online   While we may be entering dot-connecting territory here, the design on the wall behind Clinton bears a resemblance to a photograph from Business Insider supposedly showing the interior of Canadian businessman Frank Giustra's plane. Giustra and Clinton, like Burkle and Clinton, were frequent travel partners: Canadian businessman frequent travel   Angel Urena, Clinton's spokesperson, also denied that the viral image was taken aboard Epstein's plane: "This photograph was not taken on Epsteins airplane." In addition to misidentifying the location of this photograph, Qanon believers also frequently share this photograph with the claim that the woman was underage at the time the photograph was taken. Again, this is based on pure speculation: speculation   When Gawker first shared this photograph in 2006, the organization claimed it showed a "19-year-old college student." This appears to be accurate. In 2009, The Cut identified the woman as a "22-year-old" in an article about her photography. This would make her approximately 19 in 2006 when the photograph was allegedly snapped.  Clinton did fly on Epstein's plane a number of times. However, the above-displayed photograph does not document one of these trips. This photograph shows Clinton with a young woman aboard a plane more likely owned by either Burkle or Giustra.  number of times While the question of who she is may send conspiracy theorists down a rabbit hole of assumptions and speculation, the real answer is quite simple: She is a photographer and co-founder of New York-based modeling agency who was needlessly thrown into this world of conspiracy because she once appeared in a photograph on a plane with Clinton.  co-founder Rothschild, Mike.  "QAnon is Attacking a Random Woman in a Disturbing and Dangerous Way."
  Daily Dot.  21 March 2019. Rothschild, Mike.  "QAnon is Attacking a Random Woman in a Disturbing and Dangerous Way."
  Daily Dot.  21 March 2019. Ellia, Emma.  "Crying 'Pedophile' is the Oldest Propaganda Trick in the Book."
  Wired.  1 August 2018. Neon Revolt.  "D-Room. DINING ROOMS. HRC +++ + +++++ Unlocked? #QAnon #GreatAwakening."
  7 April 2018. NWO Report.  "Footage Of Abused Children Captured On Jeffrey Epsteins Pedo Island."
  15 April 2018. Radar Online.  "Tour for the First Time: Inside Bill Clinton Pal's 'Lolita Express' - The Pedophile Billionaire's Sex Jet He Flew On 11 Times."
  11 July 2016. Alterman, Eric.  "If Jeffrey Epstein Faces Justice, Itll Be Thanks to a Local Newspaper."
  The Nation.  17 July 2019. Brown, Julie.  "How a Future Trump Cabinet Member Gave a Serial Sex abuser the Deal of a Lifetime."
  Miami Herald.  28 November 2018.