Did he just say that when an account is deleted, all the data are hard deleted (not just a boolean in a column)? It's really hard to believe.
He definitely did say that -- all of your data does not exist in any archive.
Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
271–280 of 487 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#272Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#273It'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
The question and its answer succeed in getting Zuckerberg on record (in the Congressional Record, no less) as saying that his business model depends on advertising, with all that that implies about the relationship between Facebook and its users.
Think of it as like when you're on the witness stand and the attorney asks you a question. It's not because he doesn't know the answer. It's because he wants you to say the answer, to make it part of the public record and to have the jury hear it.
Speaking of juries, the arrogance of Zuckerberg's answer wouldn't win any points with a jury, either. He walked into a trap right there.
It's fun to bust on our parents & politicos but I'm pretty sure anybody who managed to raise you, or especially get into the Senate, has a much more extensive and nuanced understanding of life (and politics) than you think.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This is a good point, but FB brings the "real name policy" to the data broker's world. Being able to link real people with real credit profiles, and real web browsing habits is a game changer. Many of us were ranting and raving all of over HN ~2010/2011 about the issues FB represented, but we were tinfoilers and haters. Even those of us without FB accounts (with forgone networking opportunities) are at risk because w…
The real name policy is kind-of irrelevant. Data brokers can see what FB account is logged in and link with your real name via credit card transaction codes and e-commerce tracking cookies.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#275Earlier 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
The question and its answer succeed in getting Zuckerberg on record (in the Congressional Record, no less) as saying that his business model depends on advertising, with all that that implies about the relationship between Facebook and its users. Think of it as like when you're on the witness stand and the attorney asks you a question. It's not because he doesn't know the answer. It's because he wants you to say the…
Tv and newspapers is funded by advertising. Nothing shameful in that.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#276Some 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 is relevant to my comment below. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16806430 ) Don't make the mistake of thinking what's happening on the surface of this is what's really happening.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way Cambridge Analytica's got its data was a little nefarious...as I understand it, they obtained data through ways Facebook discouraged (but still enabled). Whether you consider that an 'exploit' or not is subjective. It's certainly not an 'exploit' in the more common infosec sense. But the real issue here is that Facebook was complicit in electing Donald Trump. It's political.
i thought that the data flow was: 1. FB users took a personality survey conducted by some researchers at Cambridge University. 2. Then one of those researchers sold the data they'd collected on FB users to the newly formed Cambridge Analytica. 3. The Trump campaign employed CA and CA used this data to directly message FB users who'd completed the personality survey At some point, FB learned of this unapproved resale…
CA told Facebook that they did delete the data set. FB (if you believe their timeline) only discovered they lied when the scandal started circulating in the news.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#278Zuckerberg appeared to enjoy testifying. Nobody appeared able to match wits with him, and if questions got difficult, he had well rehearsed escape routes.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#279I 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?
>Of the 11 senators up for re-election this year who will be questioning Mr. Zuckerberg, nine of them have received campaign contributions from Facebook’s political action committee since the 2016 cycle
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-li...
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#280Earlier 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
The question and its answer succeed in getting Zuckerberg on record (in the Congressional Record, no less) as saying that his business model depends on advertising, with all that that implies about the relationship between Facebook and its users. Think of it as like when you're on the witness stand and the attorney asks you a question. It's not because he doesn't know the answer. It's because he wants you to say the…
> Zuckerberg on record (in the Congressional Record, no less) as saying that his business model depends on advertising
This has never been secret and has been "on record" for a very long time. I think most people will see the absolutely dismal lack of technical understanding by Congress rather than any arrogance by Facebook as they too get fed up with these aimless questions.