221–230 of 487 posts
> Zuckerberg (opening testimony): I failed. I'm sorry.
All of that being said, that's some serious growth in maturity, and I'd like to see more of it across the tech industry.
"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"
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?"
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 t…
WhatsApp is sold as an E2E encrypted service, and an admission that WhatsApp message data (or even metadata) is somehow used for advertising as well would be a huge admission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks to all who came to watch. I stopped the stream now because it’s been over 20 minutes since the markets have closed and I’m not adding value at this point. The links to my sources are still live. They just took a brief break as well. Thanks again.
https://www.twitch.tv/washingtonpost is continuing to stream the testimony. Some of the questioning sounds tougher now, so it's a shame that markets are closed.
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.
Christ do you work at a tinfoil hat company?
Reading the transcripts there seems to be a lot of grandstanding. While it makes for a nice drama, if these people were serious about protecting privacy (haha), we'd be talking about meaningful privacy laws instead. This reads like a group of senators begging Mark Zuckerberg to respect privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is the ethnicity of Zuck's wife relevant?
The scenario is this: say my wife is a first generation Italian and I am the CEO of a really great new car company. If someone says, "This is a great car, I could never say, seeing an ITALIAN making such a car!" I would be embarrassed for the person saying this, as they don't know my family history (maybe I don't look Italian, I look like a viking, if one was to guess - which you shouldn't), and to be perfectly hones…
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?"
Z: "No, you would not see ads about Black Panther". (Paraphrased, don't have transcript)
Earlier 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
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…
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?
Can we apply the same principles in the case of Facebook?