141–150 of 487 posts
Ted 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 knew the answer (no, because that's so clearly egregiously illegal) but wanted to make the insinuation.
I smell a "The Social Network 2.0" in the making
Mark 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…
Facebook, on the other hand, what other network can I use? Twitter isn't really the same thing. Most people outside of China don't have WeChat (and why would I voluntarily give anything to the Chinese government). Same with LINE (Korea, Taiwan) and VK (Facebook for Russia). Instagram, which really isn't the same as Facebook is owned by Facebook, as is WhatsApp. The only competitor is Google+, and is that even still going? Is it really a competing social media network if no one I know is on it?
"Is it true facebook can track user browsers even after they are logged out of facebook?" Zuck: "I need to get back to you on that"
Honestly is there anyway that he could explain the Facebook Pixel/ad network that wouldn't just be describing any ad network? By definition, ad tracking (cookies etc...) is opaque to most people and explaining it publicly would make it seem like FB is doing something more nefarious than others. It's an important discussion but his response would just make FB seem way worse on that specific issue than highlighting how…
Even those of us without FB accounts (with forgone networking opportunities) are at risk because we all have friends without the same cynicism.
Ted 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.
Can i want to have none of these? Is there a third option, that opposes both?
Ted 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.
I believe others had been covering privacy pretty well. When it comes to 20k people manually policing content - it is probably good that the group be neutral.
I 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.
Some bingo cards: https://twitter.com/libshipwreck/status/983358587723505666 https://twitter.com/Gizmodo/status/983780434621489153 https://twitter.com/qz/status/983754216861822977
Ted 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.
Ted 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.
The Democratic Senators aren't grilling Facebook for deleting pro-ISIS pages, but the President is completely happy to be supported by Nazi groups.