Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 263 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#31

Post by mostlyskeptical »

afarrell wrote: post #25
Casseres wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

But it would be more important for those engineers would also need to have a solid understanding of the law, which is a highly detailed and nuanced field. I think this isn't an implementable solution. Maybe you get a more-technically-knowledgable version of Ron Wyden who then sits on several subcommittees, but you're not going to get 10% of the Senate to be software engineers. After all, one could just as easily say…

Doesn't the house of Lords have some members appointed by the church, others by birth, women weren't allowed to be Lords spiritual until 2015, and women still aren't allowed to inherit some seats today?

Hard to take that seriously in any regard, much less as 'experts'.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#32

Post by sametmax »

frankharv wrote: post #18
5555624 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What part of "Private Message" do you not understand. These data rapers were stealing peoples "Private Messages" The term "Private Message" is not complicated. They stole peoples data straight up. Data thieves. What they do is hide behind these screens you defend. Written by scumbag lawyers to not be understood or clear.

This is the comment of something who hasn't read the terms and conditions.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#33

Post by distances »

lwansbrough wrote: post #7

I 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…

> 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.

No solution that involves teaching or educating users will work. It's simply not possible without some drastic measures such as a real change in school curriculum and waiting for the older generations to pass. It doesn't work with IT security, it will not work with privacy either.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#34

Post by apexalpha »

ftlio wrote: post #19
deif wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what your definition of free internet is, but mine is one where the users are free, not the businesses.

Since when are businesses not users of the internet?

We obviously mean freedom for individual users lacking the resources of big organisations to defend themselves and protect their own rights.

Come on this isn't a game of semantics.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#35

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

spacehome wrote: post #5

I 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…

On an unrelated note: I always wonder how people nowadays identify the Internet with WWW. There are so many ways to use the Internet in a way not even remotely related to the current power struggles between greedy businesses and duped users, with incompetent governments meddling in from time to time.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#36

Post by sametmax »

5555624 wrote: post #10
lwansbrough wrote: post #7

I 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…

Exactly.

Facebook is a bad actor. It's good if we can do something about it.

But Facebook is not the root of the problem. There will always be bad actors.

The root of the problem is that people don't care.

I told me friends and relative, again and again, about those issues. I answered any question. I did research, on MY time, to answer their concerns, for them who would not dare spending a second on it. I listened patiently to the witty comments on the fact I didn't have a FB account, for years.

They just didn't care enough to make any effort, any change.

And they still don't, no matter what the scandal feels right now. They will forget tomorrow.

And even if they didn't, they will blame the bad actor, not their choice. And it will start all over again with another bad actor. That's what happen with crazy ex, lying politicians and bad movies.

Now I (somewhat) get that choosing what you buy has a high impact on you life, and so I gave up on expecting people to vote with their wallet. It's sad, because that would have a huge effect, but it's the reality.

But "not using Facebook" is different than choosing to move out of a city or not having a car or other life altering decisions. It's just a communication tool. We have so many.

So I have currently zero empathy for the "victims" of this leak. Quite the contrary, I feel a little angry. Because I have to leave in a world that could be much more beautiful if only people, sometimes, just sometimes, though about the consequences of their life instead of just going with the motion. And this affects much more than privacy. And it's unfair.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#37

Post by diasp »

notspanishflu wrote: post #24
gaius wrote: post #12

If a person logs out of Facebook, and Facebook continues to track them anyway, then that’s clearly violating consent, and there was a meeting where someone said “we need a way to track people who explicitly do not want to be tracked” and everyone in the room nodded.

Facebook tracks everyone, every time. Tracks users and non users. Tracks even people trying to avoid that company. For example, the infamous pixel code. !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e…

In diaspora* you own your data. You don’t sign over rights to a corporation or other interest who could use it. https://diasporafoundation.org

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#38

Post by kaitnieks »

Maybe I'm too cynical about politics, but it appears to me that the point of these hearings is not to solve or investigate anything, it's to generate soundbites that voters or potential future voters would like. It's not even that important what the reply is, as long as the politician asks the hard question and demonstrates his concern, and if it makes the news & press, that's victory for them.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#39

Post by d33 »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #35
spacehome wrote: post #5

I 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…

On an unrelated note: I always wonder how people nowadays identify the Internet with WWW. There are so many ways to use the Internet in a way not even remotely related to the current power struggles between greedy businesses and duped users, with incompetent governments meddling in from time to time.

Could you elaborate?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#40

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

aje403 wrote: post #15
deif wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what your definition of free internet is, but mine is one where the users are free, not the businesses.

Those two things are positively correlated

Not necessarily. The ultimate aim of each business is to crush the competition and become a monopoly. If they succeed, and we do have some de facto monopolies now, they can do whatever they want and users/customers have little or no choice. Regulations limiting the power of companies are designed do counteract that.
Post reply on HN