Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress • Hacker News Board

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#301

Post by kerng » Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 11:36 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #223

ezekg wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Of course it was deliberate. Him admitting they serve ads based on Messenger content means nothing, we already know that they do. 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.

Exactly, the point is Facebook at anytime can change the client to show ads, or send some of the text up for analysis. The point being the user is not in control. It's all based on trust. Do you trust Facebook won't do it? Do you trust Facebook won't be hacked and does it, etc.. some of the senators attempted to highlight that. One guy asked if Zuckerberg could few is stuff, and Zuckerberg had to admit that technically he could.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#302

Post by Balgair » Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 11:36 PM UTC

Now that it's all over, my take away is less cynical. To me, even the Rep. senators know what this meeting was all about: Donny. Zuck came in, said that this whole fiasco with Donny is not going to happen again. The senators got him on record telling them as such, so that they have leverage on him to actually follow through. Yes, they talked a lot about other stuff too, but we are unlikely to see the mess of the 2016 election again.

Also, they seemed to favor having FANG write the laws about these data service. This will entrench them nearly permanently as competitors will then have to go through all the hoops of complying with regulation, something too costly for a start-up. When that happens, that's the end of Web 2.0.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#303

Post by adventured » Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 11:37 PM UTC

forgot-my-pw wrote: post #255

mercer wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"The Facebook hearing is the greatest generational divide I’ve ever seen. It’s like watching WWII generals question somebody on drone strikes and cyberwarfare." https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/983788172306874369

That's an entirely bullshit statement by the twitter user.

WW2 generals were very arguably some of the greatest military minds the world has ever seen. They rapidly adopted what was radically new military technology at the time and figured out how to use it extraordinarily effectively through understanding it.

Eisenhower, Montgomery, Rommel, MacArthur, Patton, Bradley would immediately understand drone strikes.

I guarantee their questions would be vastly superior in every regard to what I just watched at the hearing today.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#304

Post by tenpies » Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 11:38 PM UTC

Panjam wrote: post #222

misiti3780 wrote: post #41

"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"

I get the distinct impression that Zuckerberg has been briefed to say "I'll get back to you on that", on anything that might be controversial. Probably some wisdom in that as it defuses a lot of emotion that could arise if certain information comes out in this setting. But it's also disingenuous, even if it avoids a lynchmob for now.

"I'll get back to you" was essentially "On the advice of council, I would like to exercise my fifth amendment right". It was like a Chapelle skit at times.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#305

Post by RandallBrown » Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 11:39 PM UTC

18pfsmt wrote: post #29

HoppedUpMenace wrote: post #15

MZ: "You control and own the content you post on Facebook" Something seems just a tad bit disingenuous about this.

Users might own the content, but they grant FB a perpetual license to that content.

I mean, they have to. HN has a perpetual license to our comments because otherwise they couldn't host them.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#306

Post by Karrot_Kream » Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 11:39 PM UTC

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #300

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. Several controversial questions were dodged by saying his team would follow up. While it's attractive to paint politicians as incompetent buffoons, let's not forget each of them has their own staff and understands what it means to delegate to your staff and not have answers immediately on hand that only a staff expert would understand.

I'm pretty sure both of you are correct. There was a large amount of tech illiteracy on display but, at the same time, Mark dodged TONS of questions and spoke indirectly like a professional. That entire testimony was very unsatisfying, in my opinion.

This was what I was trying to get at.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#307

Post by gkanai » Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 11:40 PM UTC

zamalek wrote: post #221

I'm an extremely reluctant Facebook user (having recently moved countries, my whole family and all my friends are on it). I strongly dislike the company; I don't trust the CEO. My use of the platform is in moderation and occurs within a Firefox container. > 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 tec…

> that's some serious growth in maturity

My issue is that Zuckerberg has been apologizing about privacy lapses at his firm since the inception of the firm. His company's business is built on sharing the data of the users.

I am a reluctant user of FB. I have stopped posting new content to my feed and do not plan to do so in the future.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#308

Post by BinaryIdiot » Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 11:41 PM UTC

So this isn't exactly related to the testimony but I'm genuinely curious: is it normal for someone giving testimony to use a booster like seat? I mean it was a pretty thick cushion. I was surprised to see Zuck using one especially since the seat is already padded.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#309

Post by EdSharkey » Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 11:43 PM UTC

Pfhreak wrote: post #207

great_kraken wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a certain part of the far left can engage in hate speech against those who they view as intolerant of other's cultures or lifestyles (e.g. transgendered issues), and/or those who say things which they deem offensive (e.g. pronouns, triggering, rights movements, gender identity vs biology).

At the risk of stepping on a landmine given the thread above, consider using 'transgender' or 'trans' instead of 'transgenedered'. The two are subtly different, but that difference is important to some trans people. Transgendered implies something happened to someone, rather than transgender, which is an attribute someone has. Many trans people consider the transgendered offensive, e.g. "No one/No thing transgendered…

> Many trans people consider the transgendered offensive

You are creating insanity everywhere you go with this line.

Anyone who takes offense at such a trifle can only be out to pick a fight. And if someone is egging for a fight, shall we engage rather than wilt away? And isn't THAT the landmine you're stepping on here?

Are you picking a fight? If so, where do you get off?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#310

Post by kej » Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 11:44 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #275

rdiddly wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've said this before, but I think most people don't have a problem with advertising, per se, but with the tracking required for super effective advertising.

When Google first showed up and just tossed some ads at the top of your search results based solely on the search terms, that was actually helpful. It wasn't something that people were creeped out by until they were tracking you everywhere to sell even more targeted ads.

Since newspapers and TV don't have that tracking capability, the advertisements are annoying but not unsettling, I think.