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

241–250 of 487 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#241

Post by dingaling »

lakechfoma wrote: post #153
fbonetti wrote: post #87

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…

> Maybe a large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population

That's how WhatsApp started to fund itself, I remember there being a nominal annual charge ( £1 ) for some users but not for all. There didn't seem to be any obvious rule as to who was pinged to pay-up, perhaps it really was random.

But that was discontinued after they were acquired.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#242

Post by edaemon »

fbonetti wrote: post #101
merouan wrote: post #93

Earlier 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.

That senator, Orrin Hatch (R-UT), is 84 years old. He may be genuinely unaware of how sites like Facebook make money, though his expression after Zuckerberg answered seemed like he was entirely aware of how basic the question/answer was.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#243

Post by nashashmi »

0x00000000 wrote: post #210
forgot-my-pw wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if Facebook doesn't get the data through you, it still gets your data from people you know.

It was people who don't have my phone number or any other information including people who I am not friends with and only messaged once from a buy/sell group. I am guessing because I used the app at some point on my phone it fingerprinted it, then Instagram goes and fingerprints it when you install and links your account even when you decline to do so.

Spammers get your email address the same way by hackers who hack your friends.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#244

Post by kzrdude »

18pfsmt wrote: post #203

Some poor Senator just went on a rabbit hunt to discuss FB's bug bounty program. Who are these Congressional staffers? Tech illiteracy is on full-display; we're not even talking 'power-users' (who were on UseNet, btw), these people are lost. Zuckerberg had to be gracious and say his team would follow-up on many things that it was clear the Senator didn't even understand. This is supposed to be our smart chamber.

This might come across as naive, but I think it is impressive that 1) A lot of politicians are getting their talking time, some more knowledgeable than others, 2) the politicians engage overwhelmingly in good faith on their own level, without being intimidated

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#245

Post by _bxg1 »

ipsum2 wrote: post #228
_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?"

You missed the answer. Z: "No, you would not see ads about Black Panther". (Paraphrased, don't have transcript)

Right. The point was how confused the senator was about how encryption works

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#247

Post by Silhouette »

wuunderbar wrote: post #190
drexlspivey wrote: post #158

I call BS on actual deleting all user data when someone deletes his account. If some whistle blower proves otherwise is he liable for prosecution for perjury?

Define deleted. Do you mean the data itself is purged, or simply marked as deleted and rendered inaccessible? If you mean purged, then do you also mean that it is zeroed off of the disk by a multiple low-level pass? This would be hard to prosecute for perjury as the definition of "deleted" can be construed in many ways.

This is the sort of word game that surely wouldn't last ten seconds in any courtroom.

"Did you delete the data or not?"

"Yes, we deleted the data."

"Then how is it that we're all sitting here looking at it?"

This modern fiction of pretending something is deleted just because someone set a flag called "deleted" has about as much relevance to actual deletion as the evil bit in an IPv4 header has to actual Internet security. It's not deleted in any technical sense, nor in the common English meaning of the word.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#250

Post by paxys »

drblast wrote: post #213

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.

That is what these testimonies always turn into. The big Apple tax evasion hearing a while ago was basically the senators taking turns to kiss Tim Cook's ass.
Post reply on HN