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

401–410 of 487 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#401

Post by function_seven »

justinator wrote: post #370
function_seven wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The senator didn't mention any specific country. Just said, "Only in America..." I think you're reading a bit much into that.

Here's the part of the transcript that's relevant: SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Zuckerberg, quite a story, right? Dorm room to the global behemoth that you guys are. Only in America, would you agree with that? ZUCKERBERG: Senator, mostly in America. SULLIVAN: You couldn't -- you couldn't do this in China, right? Or, what you did in 10 years. ZUCKERBERG: Well -- well, Senator, there are -- there are some…

Oh. You’re not reading too much then. That is cringeworthy. Not necessarily from the jingoistic perspective (but that also), but mainly from how ignorant it is. There are countries where starting a multi-billion dollar business is virtually impossible. China is not among them.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#402

Post by rdtsc »

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

> It's a really odd line of questioning from people who don't seem to understand the subject matter.

Maybe but that particular quote "Zuckerberg (in a disdainful tone): Senator, we run ads." is not an example of it. Sometimes they ask really basic questions, not because they don't know the answer to it, but to enter it into the record. It's how a police or how cross examination starts, get them to admit basic stuff then later make them contradict themselves. Another reason for basic "stupid" questions is to provide information for others who many not be aware. We all know how FB makes money, but that might not extend to people who aren't proficient technically (think grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles...).

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#403

Post by dtornabene »

rdiddly wrote: post #273
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

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…

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

You say that, but I'd just like to remind you that Louie Gohmert (my home state fwiw) was a judge. And is now in the house.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#404

Post by fsloth »

some_account wrote: post #399
btown wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook doesn't delete all cookies (for instance, there's an `sb` cookie still set) in their logout response. They may choose not to do anything with the cookies that remain, but the technical answer to the question is yes. And even if they currently did delete all cookies, there's nothing from preventing them from introducing cookies that do remain. Zuck knows this is generally feasible - he's a talented software e…

Cookies? I would assume Facebook is using the latest tracking techniques like canvas fingerprinting and other ways to identify users uniquely on the web.

I though canvas fingerprinting can't track individual users, but only segments based on the underlying graphics substrate?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#405

Post by rdtsc »

manigandham wrote: post #280
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…

> 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.

> This has never been secret and has been "on record" for a very long time.

Been a secret to "whom"? Not secret to technical people, no. There are plenty of non-technical people who still don't understand the "you are the product not a customer" trope. They see this free "talk to your family" service which sometimes shows ads which they ignore. They might answer the "how FB makes money question?" with "I don't know, maybe some people pay for it. Or maybe they are just nice and give it away for free".

Other questions might have been stupid but that particular one was typical of how a police investigator might start questioning or how a lawyer might cross examine a witness.

> I think most people will see the absolutely dismal lack of technical understanding by Congress

Back in the day I used to think of lawyers asking witness questions on the stand the same way: "Why do you ask him if he knows the victim, of course he does, these lawyers are sure not very bright..."

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#407

Post by sumoboy »

paxys wrote: post #239
baalimago wrote: post #54

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?

If we're talking globally then Facebook is quite obviously not a monopoly. Just within the US, I guess you have to conclusively define what it has a monopoly in, i.e. what is "social networking". For online messaging there is iMessage, Hangouts, Skype, Snapchat. Photo sharing - Snapchat again, Twitter, probably even just email. For videos there is YouTube. For maps and check-ins there is Foursquare, Yelp. And the con…

He should have responded with every company having a chat platform, social graph, and ad platform. So google, linkedin, twitter, apple, microsoft, and so on. Then consult with the grandkids for an explanation on how things actually work. Trying compare FB that has been around for 14 years vs. the automobile for over a 130 years was silly.

FB is about making $$ with ads, the social aspect is a drug for the eyeballs. Why didn't they just ask him if he considered himself the worlds digital drug dealer?

Congress acting all worried "you have our private information and going to use it against us", where were you when the net neutrality vote was the topic?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#408

Post by HillaryBriss »

amarkov wrote: post #277
HillaryBriss wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks for additional info and clarification.

So ... what about now? Wouldn't it be a good move for FB to start taking legal action against CA, the survey group, and anyone in sight in order to create the impression that they want to protect user data?

I'm thinking of corporations like Oracle, Microsoft, and Disney (very litigious corporations) -- isn't this a good time for FB to start acting more like those companies?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#409

Post by nfoz »

jakebasile wrote: post #104
koolba wrote: post #24

Live from the testimony, emphasis mine: > MZ: "There will always be a version of Facebook that is free. Coming soon, Facebook Pro(TM)! Literally putting a price on your privacy.

I mean, it's trumpeted from the rooftops here that if you don't pay you are the product. What is the alternative if not charge the user for the service?

Paying for the service doesn't automatically mean you aren't the product.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#410

Post by Blahah »

Silhouette wrote: post #375
Blahah wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really do not think this is accurate. I have been in a courtroom when a file was described as 'deleted' and then an expert witness 'recovered' the 'deleted' file, which was entered as evidence. Delete is a technical word that has a specfiic meaning. Unlike most language, technical terms are (to some degree) clearly defined and should not change over time or with common usage. Whether people misinterpret the word ar…

Delete is a technical word that has a specfiic meaning. Respectfully, if that were true, we wouldn't all be having this discussion.

Respectfully, the fact that we're having this discussion means some participants aren't adhering to the technical definition. There's a meandering, geographically and socialogically heterogeneous definition that is non-technical. In court, I believe a technical expert would use the former, not the latter (unless specifically required to do otherwise).
Post reply on HN