Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 487 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#151

Post by ibejoeb »

sincerely wrote: post #138
Consultant32452 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But the real issue here is that Facebook was complicit in electing Donald Trump. It's political. This bit is really terrifying to me. I don't support Trump, but the idea that we're going to make it even harder for "unapproved" political candidates should make everyone's skin crawl.

I thought the issue was that foreign actors were able to use Facebook to push for their candidate of choice, not that Trump was "unapproved" (why do you use quotes? that phrase doesn't appear anywhere in the comment you're responding to).

Why is it important that Facebook was the medium? Zuck just done saying that they identified 400-500 Russian accounts the were politically active. The "unapproved" in quotes part there is that these are Russians.

Simultaneously, there were tens of thousands of foreign nationals demonstrating in the streets of major cities all over the country, and this is "approved." This is why I'm left wondering: what are we after?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#152

Post by _bxg1 »

_bxg1 wrote: post #48

It's pretty cringe-y so far. From The Verge's liveblog: "I would liken this hearing so far to a precocious college junior explaining his major to his grandparents at Thanksgiving"

Senator: "If I email someone over WhatsApp about Black Panther, will I see ads about Black Panther?"

Zuckerberg: "WhatsApp messages are fully encrypted."

S: "But can it spit out some algorithmic thing that will affect ads?"

Z: "Facebook's systems don't see the content of your messages."

S: "But could they talk to each other, even if no human ever sees the content?"

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#153

Post by lakechfoma »

fbonetti wrote: post #87
_bxg1 wrote: post #48

It's pretty cringe-y so far. From The Verge's liveblog: "I would liken this hearing so far to a precocious college junior explaining his major to his grandparents at Thanksgiving"

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

I think he was trying to get at something here though: can you run a business that is free for some people and isn't ad based? To which I think the answer could be nuanced. Maybe a large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population that doesn't have that privilege. Note I'm not actually advocating that, just saying I want to give the guy a benefit of the doubt that he was trying to move the conversation somewhere new and creative.

I think a lot of these questions have been like that, but ultimately the senators couldn't figure out how to phrase what they were getting at and both sides floundered to understand what was going on.

edit: as an example was another senator, "mr funny guy", who was trying to ask if facebook tracks how people use other apps or devices, I'm still not sure, even when they aren't logged in or something. I saw 3 possible questions that he was trying to ask and they all would have been good but I don't think either of them understood what he was asking so they went back and forth uselessly. Could have been some hard hitting commentary on the bundling of permissions, or the bundling of fb with a phone, or the ability for fb to track other app usage, or the ability of fb to track users on websites even when not logged in. oh well.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#154

Post by Macuyiko »

dbbk wrote: post #120
Macuyiko wrote: post #100

The point about "not selling data to advertisers" and how Facebook is so totally different was so cringy. Just one follow-up question was needed: if I take out 100 ads microtargeting users, what happens then?

He is right. Even if you did the most microtargeting possible, Facebook is still not selling that user's data, the advertiser gets no data whatsoever on the individual that sees or clicks on the ad. The most you could glean is if you targeted an ad to one person, then that person clicked on the ad, you know that that one person clicked on the ad. You don't learn anything else about that person.

I wasn't claiming that he isn't right. That is exactly the point: he is right/correct in all his answers, but the questions are not specific/technically informed enough.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#155

Post by Consultant32452 »

sincerely wrote: post #138
Consultant32452 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But the real issue here is that Facebook was complicit in electing Donald Trump. It's political. This bit is really terrifying to me. I don't support Trump, but the idea that we're going to make it even harder for "unapproved" political candidates should make everyone's skin crawl.

I thought the issue was that foreign actors were able to use Facebook to push for their candidate of choice, not that Trump was "unapproved" (why do you use quotes? that phrase doesn't appear anywhere in the comment you're responding to).

I don't believe for a second that this much fuss would have been made over this issue if Trump had lost the election. Some law enforcement action may have been taken, but it wouldn't have been front page news. The reason for my quotes is that Trump is "unapproved" which is the explanation for the scale of the reaction. I don't particularly approve of him either, but considering the real motivations of the people writing regulation is important.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#156

Post by gregknicholson »

mmsimanga wrote: post #74

Am I missing something? Take the Senator who spoke about monopolies. An oil monopoly is bad because we all need to get to work and trains need to run. Microsoft monopoly, arguable but I can see how it can be bad. All companies end up using Microsoft and this affects everyone, hospitals, schools ... Facebook is optional, we won't starve, hospitals won't close, aeroplanes will continue if we delete Facebook. Is this an…

Are there are job offers on Facebook? (That's a genuine question; I don't have an account.)

Perhaps some service providers are only (or primarily) contactable for complaints via Facebook (and maybe Twitter and a couple of others), and therefore to contact them you need an account with one of those companies.

So perhaps to participate in society without a disadvantage, you need an account with Facebook Inc, or at least I think that's the idea.

(Also, there are alternatives to oil! If you don't like the service provided by Oil Inc, you can buy your energy from Electricity Ltd instead.)

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#157

Post by mercer »

_bxg1 wrote: post #152
_bxg1 wrote: post #48

It's pretty cringe-y so far. From The Verge's liveblog: "I would liken this hearing so far to a precocious college junior explaining his major to his grandparents at Thanksgiving"

Senator: "If I email someone over WhatsApp about Black Panther, will I see ads about Black Panther?" Zuckerberg: "WhatsApp messages are fully encrypted." S: "But can it spit out some algorithmic thing that will affect ads?" Z: "Facebook's systems don't see the content of your messages." S: "But could they talk to each other , even if no human ever sees the content?"

It's so frustrating how close they get to asking the real questions...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#159

Post by ezekg »

_bxg1 wrote: post #152
_bxg1 wrote: post #48

It's pretty cringe-y so far. From The Verge's liveblog: "I would liken this hearing so far to a precocious college junior explaining his major to his grandparents at Thanksgiving"

Senator: "If I email someone over WhatsApp about Black Panther, will I see ads about Black Panther?" Zuckerberg: "WhatsApp messages are fully encrypted." S: "But can it spit out some algorithmic thing that will affect ads?" Z: "Facebook's systems don't see the content of your messages." S: "But could they talk to each other , even if no human ever sees the content?"

This question (like many others) was frustrating, because it was worded in such a way that was incredibly easy for Zuck to dodge. Of course FB isn't using your encrypted messages for ad purposes, because they can't. But messages sent from FB Messenger, not from WhatsApp, are unencrypted and so are likely used for ad purposes -- but of course the question wasn't worded in that way.

The way they scoped that question to WhatsApp and not Messenger seemed quite deliberate.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#160

Post by _bxg1 »

mercer wrote: post #157
_bxg1 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Senator: "If I email someone over WhatsApp about Black Panther, will I see ads about Black Panther?" Zuckerberg: "WhatsApp messages are fully encrypted." S: "But can it spit out some algorithmic thing that will affect ads?" Z: "Facebook's systems don't see the content of your messages." S: "But could they talk to each other , even if no human ever sees the content?"

It's so frustrating how close they get to asking the real questions...

Setting aside the incredible lack of understanding, if he'd asked the same question about FB messenger he would have hit a pain point.
Post reply on HN