91–100 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brexit is relevant, because like the election of Trump, it appears nefarious actors (likely Russians in both cases) used Facebook to drive votes in a particular direction (pro-Trump, pro-Brexit).
Some people posted fake content on Facebook? And that is responsible for the election of Trump and Brexit? If you actually believe that there's some pop up internet ads I have ready for you...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm old enough to remember the 1993 Jack in the Box e. coli outbreak... and then fast-forward to Chipotle's 2015 handling of the same thing. The responses between then and now were staggering differently. Back then it was "deny, deny, deny". In today's PR conscious world - for better or worse - the people expect an immediate confession from the very top. Given's FB's breadth and depth of exposure to many people's liv…
Zuckerberg seems confident he doesn't need to really give a crap. FB will be fine either way. Why bother? He's got better things to do with his time.
No representation without taxation. Why should Facebook send Zuckerberg when Facebook paid a grand total of £2.6 million taxes to the UK in 2017. If the British parliament wants Zuckerberg to attend, make the UK relevant to Facebook. Tax it. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/04/facebook-...
This was obviously never going to happen and is absolutely the right decision for Zuckerberg and Facebook. House of Commons select committees bagging a big scalp invariably turn into show trials, with MPs possessing a completely deluded sense of their own insight into a subject queuing up to play to the cameras. The spectacle of having Zuckerberg there would have been absolutely excruciating. So, much as I'd like to…
Everything you've said is utterly accurate and yet I still think this is a terrible decision. We'll have to witness some hapless middle-manager undergo the same circus, but with every new person to speak we'll have a customary "I simply cannot believe Mr. Zuckerberg did not think it was important for him to be here in person!". Having a fall guy give terrible answers looks worse than him giving terrible answers. At t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm old enough to remember the 1993 Jack in the Box e. coli outbreak... and then fast-forward to Chipotle's 2015 handling of the same thing. The responses between then and now were staggering differently. Back then it was "deny, deny, deny". In today's PR conscious world - for better or worse - the people expect an immediate confession from the very top. Given's FB's breadth and depth of exposure to many people's liv…
Zuckerberg seems confident he doesn't need to really give a crap. FB will be fine either way. Why bother? He's got better things to do with his time.
Here's a lengthy timeline of his many publicly verified interactions with Putin's lackeys, and the financial support they have provided facebook:
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/85p30j/deleteface...
I said it in a previous post but if the congress/senate were allowed to summon Tony Hayward, BP CEO, over the Deep Water Horizon disaster then the UK Parliament are well in their rights to summon, and expect attendance, of Zukerberg over this.
> the UK Parliament are well in their rights to summon, and expect attendance, of Zukerberg over this But they aren't within their rights to summon him. That's not a power they have. They can invite him, and they did, but he doesn't have to go and speak to a committee if he doesn't want to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything you've said is utterly accurate and yet I still think this is a terrible decision. We'll have to witness some hapless middle-manager undergo the same circus, but with every new person to speak we'll have a customary "I simply cannot believe Mr. Zuckerberg did not think it was important for him to be here in person!". Having a fall guy give terrible answers looks worse than him giving terrible answers. At t…
> We'll have to witness some hapless middle-manager undergo the same circus According to The Guardian, Facebook said that "the company would be putting forward its chief technology officer, Mike Schroepfer, or its chief product officer, Chris Cox." https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/27/facebook-...
Cox and Schroepfer both seem more comfortable in front of cameras from what I can find online, and to be honest would probably have better insight into what happened. After all, it's their jobs as the heads of product, and technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually think this is absolutely the wrong move for him if he already came clean. In my estimate, he is being legally advised not to show up to these hearings for reasons unclear to us at the moment. Perhaps there's more to the story than what has been revealed thus far.
There is no conspiracy here. Being publicly scrutanized is not good for business, there is no win for Facebook to be had in this format.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the UK Parliament are well in their rights to summon, and expect attendance, of Zukerberg over this But they aren't within their rights to summon him. That's not a power they have. They can invite him, and they did, but he doesn't have to go and speak to a committee if he doesn't want to.
Facebook has enough ties to the UK that he wouldn't ignore a subpoena compelling him to appear. He might try to challenge it first, depending on how it would affect the optics of the situation, appearing only if he lost that challenge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually think this is absolutely the wrong move for him if he already came clean. In my estimate, he is being legally advised not to show up to these hearings for reasons unclear to us at the moment. Perhaps there's more to the story than what has been revealed thus far.
There is no conspiracy here. Being publicly scrutanized is not good for business, there is no win for Facebook to be had in this format.
* Monthly meetings with Yuri Milner after he invests $200 million dollars of Gazprom money in facebook after the 2008 crash.
* Facebook assigning liaisons to work at the Trump campaign offices - side by side, if not directly with, Cambridge Analytica. Kushner implies it's directly with them.
“We found that Facebook and digital targeting were the most effective ways to reach the audiences. After the primary, we started ramping up because we knew that doing a national campaign is different than doing a primary campaign. That was when we formalized the system because we had to ramp up for digital fundraising. We brought in Cambridge Analytica. I called some of my friends from Silicon Valley who were some of the best digital marketers in the world. And I asked them how to scale this stuff."
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-40852227/the-digital-gur...