Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
theguardian.com
Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
1–10 of 263 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
#2You're not going to get the "real deal" with the next hearing. If anything, they're going to take it easy on Facebook.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/04/face...
Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
#3It does sound like it was a sham. However, what is really going to make a difference now that Facebook has critical mass is people voting with their feet. This doesn't just mean attempting to remove yourself from their system but also communicating broadly how the system actually works. Most of my non-tech friends still just see it as a way to keep up to date on what is happening in the world.
Babylonbee seem to be doing a good job of spreading FBs transgressions via satire: http://babylonbee.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-promises-to-do-be...
Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
#4The article points out that the extremely short time limit for each senator's questions made following up on anything almost impossible, but their overall poor understanding of the topic was just as significant.
It was obvious that, for a lot of the senators, the questions had been supplied to them and they didn't really understand what they were asking beyond a superficial level. They'd start out with a pretty solid question or two, but then be completely unable to follow up. Quite a few of them ended up wasting almost their whole time getting sidetracked by unimportant misunderstandings.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
#5I was struck that on the surface it looked quite adversarial. Senators were trying to ask fairly pointed questions (despite any technical ignorance). But underneath the surface, the two parties here have fairly well aligned goals -- less freedom on the Internet. The senators want to show that they're doing something, and Facebook welcomes regulation in order to suffocate would-be competitors with it. I'm sure they're going to collaborate to find something that works well for both of their interests. We're witnessing the death of the free internet. It was a nice experiment while it lasted.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
#6The article points out that the extremely short time limit for each senator's questions made following up on anything almost impossible, but their overall poor understanding of the topic was just as significant. It was obvious that, for a lot of the senators, the questions had been supplied to them and they didn't really understand what they were asking beyond a superficial level. They'd start out with a pretty solid…
They should have had subject matter experts asking the questions. Instead there were people had no idea what they were talking about, wasting time on shout-outs to their sons/nephews or whomever (I was only able to follow it for a minute).
The CEO needed to be under oath so that lying would carry consequences, and they needed someone who could cut through the BS of how some of the answers were worded.
We need more programmers, engineers, etc running for office.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
#7I believe writers from the Guardian would sooner hand over control of the United States to the EU rather than try to understand why the US does things differently; but I think this question bears repeating: ethically, what has Facebook done wrong?
Understanding the full context of this hearing is vital to your opinion on the matter. I'm nobody with an outsider's perspective, but to me Facebook has made very few errors in bad faith. This whole uproar has been about Facebook's well known (or, what I once thought was well know, I guess) practices as a data and advertising platform. We know Facebook cooperates with governments around the world to produce data on its citizens. We know what can happen with our data if we _let_ it fall into the wrong hands.
I started using Facebook when I was 13 in 2007. (As a side note, I think Facebook should not be sharing data about minors to any parties.) I filled out a fair few questionnaires and I may have even participated in "Your digital life" somewhere along the line. At that time I started using Facebook it was providing an interface for establishing informed consent (basically their OAuth flow), to the extent at which it was reasonable for them (which to this day extends beyond the requirements of the law in the US as far as I know.) I consented to sharing my data with the 3rd party, which was essentially a license for that party to own that data. I knew that, and I did it anyway because I couldn't predict the ramifications of its collection and aggregation by a hostile party.
I think the people who are most upset about this whole controversy are the ones who blame it for Russia's Active Measures.
In my opinion, the solution isn't a GDPR-esque approach. I think we have to teach people why data is valuable and how it can be used against them. This is important for both creating an intellectual barrier to the efficacy of propaganda and so that people can make real, informed decisions about their privacy so that when they're asked if they want to share their friends' birthdates and phone numbers, they know what their answer should be.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
#8I believe writers from the Guardian would sooner hand over control of the United States to the EU rather than try to understand why the US does things differently; but I think this question bears repeating: ethically, what has Facebook done wrong? Understanding the full context of this hearing is vital to your opinion on the matter. I'm nobody with an outsider's perspective, but to me Facebook has made very few error…
The value of people's data is precisely _why_ GDPR is important. I should be able to take it away from you after I granted you temporary access to it.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
#9These are the same elected officials that approved ISPs selling usage data? The same officials that were silent when Snowden released what he had? Etc.
Do I trust MZ and FB? Yes, as much as I trust Uncle Sam. Hint: Not much. The sham is on us. Again.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
#10I believe writers from the Guardian would sooner hand over control of the United States to the EU rather than try to understand why the US does things differently; but I think this question bears repeating: ethically, what has Facebook done wrong? Understanding the full context of this hearing is vital to your opinion on the matter. I'm nobody with an outsider's perspective, but to me Facebook has made very few error…
When you signed up for Facebook, was there a screen that said, "Facebook will take all the information you provide, regardless of format or intent, and monetize it as much as possible, as well as share it with government agencies"? You knew this going in. Many people know this and don't have Facebook account. A lot of people did not know this and are just finding out -- that's where the "outrage" comes out. (A fourth group are those who didn't know and don't care.)
What might be worse is that had Facebook actually put that screen up, most people would not have bothered to read it. Very few people ever read "Terms & Conditions" and that's a problem. (Just like not reading "Permissions" when installing an app.)