Some bingo cards: https://twitter.com/libshipwreck/status/983358587723505666 https://twitter.com/Gizmodo/status/983780434621489153 https://twitter.com/qz/status/983754216861822977
There needs to be a square for: "In general..."
Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
121–130 of 487 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#122Ted Cruz clearly showing that he's a partisan hack. Didn't give a crap about users' privacy or the issues at hand, he had to make it about 'liberal Silicon Valley' and 'conservative persecution'. What a joke.
It's almost a completely biased question.
Objectively: who engages in hate speech? The far right.
The far left may be overly accepting of everything, let's say.. they are not the ones engaging in hate speech.
So it's no surprise that far right pages would be banned way more often than far left pages.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's so many "I need to get back to you on that".
It's a good strategy, all the media coverage is about his actual testimony today, whereas when he sends an update to the committee next week, it will not make as big of a splash as this one.
Does anybody know if any of these folow-ups make it into the Congressional Record at a later time?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#124I would not be surprised if Zuckerberg were given a script of certain senators questions prior to this hearing. A majority of the questioning seems targeted at inspiring consumer confidence in facebook. This isn't about serving the American people, this is about protecting corporation's ability to sell citizens personal data.
You believe the Senators are conspiring with Facebook to protect their profit margin?
Why do you believe this? What would you believe if the questioning was harmful to facebook? Would you believe that Senators are conspiring with Snapchat to target facebook?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a really odd line of questioning from people who don't seem to understand the subject matter. This gem made me laugh out loud: Senator: How do you sustain a business model in which users don't pay for your service? Zuckerberg (in a disdainful tone): Senator, we run ads. https://clips.twitch.tv/FantasticCrowdedDelicataPipeHype Edit: I directly transcribed the exchange
Timestamp for this exchange?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#126Ted Cruz clearly showing that he's a partisan hack. Didn't give a crap about users' privacy or the issues at hand, he had to make it about 'liberal Silicon Valley' and 'conservative persecution'. What a joke.
He's a good representative to show how Facebook actually are politically bias to some degree, where they absolutely shouldn't be. I'm sure there are examples of similar actions to the 'left' also, and if there aren't now there might become in the future when the political winds change.
I think Cruz played his role as partial acknowledged politician very well.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#127Mark Zuckerberg does not believe he has a monopoly. He believes there is an alternative to Facebook in the way that different car manufacturers have different competitors. Surely he can't mean this, right?
> Mark Zuckerberg does not believe he has a monopoly. I tend to agree with him. Facebook just happens to be the most popular Internet social network, right now , but there is nothing that makes it a monopoly. Anyone could replace it, there is nothing actively stopping them from doing so. I'm sure for decades the Ford Motor Company was thought of as a Monopoly... and then they went bankrupt, and that's just one compan…
>Anyone could replace it, there is nothing actively stopping them from doing so.
Sure there is; all of the people on FB already. The fact that the software can be replicated is not the only consideration. If, in practice, they have a virtual monopoly due to user lock in then it's a reasonable debate to have.
I'm certainly out of my depth on the legal end of this, but your definition is far too simplistic.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#128Mark Zuckerberg does not believe he has a monopoly. He believes there is an alternative to Facebook in the way that different car manufacturers have different competitors. Surely he can't mean this, right?
People here told me Google+ was amazing and that everyone worth associating with was on there. Is that no longer true?
Unless you're suggesting that nobody I interact with in real life is worth "associating with", then that statement has never been true.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're misunderstanding the intent: obviously they are aware of that. Hearings commonly involve asking basic questions
I know that was probably the intent, but the senator sounded genuinely confused. It didn't sound like a deposition-style question.
Zuck actually deflected that one well, and didn't have to elaborate unfortunately (or the Senator was ill prepared). There's a lot more to facebook ads than just "we show ads". To which degree do they sell out users' info to the advertisers?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#130Live from the testimony, emphasis mine: > MZ: "There will always be a version of Facebook that is free. Coming soon, Facebook Pro(TM)! Literally putting a price on your privacy.
Wow there is no pleasing you?
I bet you bitch and moan about privacy concerns with a tin-foil hat.. and it's because you are using services for 'free'. But when a paid alternative is suggested which by definition would have more resources to put toward your privacy you bitch about that too??
Way to have it both ways...