[deleted]
Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
411–420 of 487 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#412Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 companie…
Facebook sent forensic auditors to investigate CA. There was a general public perception that this was sketchy (what if they're really trying to destroy evidence implicating themselves?), and they were asked to stand down by British law enforcement.
Facebook's position is that they should have done more to stop companies like CA from being in a position to abuse user data - and implicitly, that there's no need for strong regulations to make them do it. Suing everyone in sight would make it seem like they're trying to create a narrative where they did nothing wrong.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#413It'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
If this is not going to be a meme I don't know. He has beautiful smile at the end there :)
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#414Earlier quoted context omitted.
It probably will come back to haunt him. I just feel all sorts of other issues are being blamed on Facebook. Humans can be horrible, there was a genocide in Rwanda. Facebook wasn't needed (not sure it was around back then). If we going to blame Facebook we might as well blame the Mobile phones for enabling us to have Facebook. I feel they should stick to the privacy issues which are true issues.
>Humans can be horrible, there was a genocide in Rwanda. Facebook wasn't needed Sure, but that doesn't mean we don't evaluate new issues as they crop up. If FB is unwittingly aiding in a genocide then it's reasonable to ask questions. People killed other people before nuclear bombs were invented, but they changed the playing field and allowed for far more destruction than was previously possible.
I agree with you. I just felt the manner in which the question was asked implied that Facebook was responsible for the Rohingya crissis. Even if Facebook wasn't available the Rohingya crissis would still have happened. Groups of people have been prejudiced against other groups for thousands of years.
Sure Facebook could implement some system that uses AI and humans to catch hate speech. Then the debate shifts to what exactly is hate speech, should Facebook a private company be determing what hate speech is? Truth be told it is the Senators who should be determining what hate speech is and providing the laws that balance freedom of expression and hate speech. It isn't Facebook's job. Yes it should be discussed. I felt Senator didn't think through or didn't know what the implications of allowing Facebook to determine what content is allowed and what content isn't allowed.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#415Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Have you ever written an introduction to a technical document before? You make statements in there that are obvious, not because the reader doesn't understand, but because you want to bring the reader into the right frame of mind with the right set of facts before them as context for the rest of the document. Questions like this are really just asking Zuckerberg to introduce his business in a controlled way.
Alright that's fair, I guess I misinterpreted the original comment as if this was cleverly teasing the information out of him vs just repeating the fact as background for the hearing.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#416Earlier quoted context omitted.
For advertising purposes it really only depends as a whole how truthful a picture the likes tell. If the likes are on average 70% truthful it is still going to be more effective targeting than not using them at all.
Which is the point. People need to stop seeing "better than a coin flip" as "knowing you better than your lover".
It's a reference to a study where they had an algorithm fed with a certain number of facebook likes compete against personal acquaintances (including spouses) in predictig personality traits. The algorithm won:
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#417Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It is relevant, because Facebook does not let you create new identities.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#418Senator Schatz has no idea what encryption is.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#419Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you previously had Facebook or Messenger installed on the phone it's possible they saved some user info on the device or in the cloud linked to your device ID.
AFAIK device uuid has been unique to device+app for at least 2 years now (iOS).
It’s company not app on iOS, you get a new one if you delete every app from one publisher
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#420Its clear that Senator Schatz has no idea what encryption is. Also what is a "data category"? I'm sorry but Zuckerberg has no idea what you are talking about because your question makes absolutely no sense.