Why was there no discussion about the price discrimination which occurred in the last election, and to be fair, probably also happened in previous elections? No other media company is allowed to do this. Does the Honest Ads bill even address this?
Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
131–140 of 263 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Facebook welcomes regulation in order to suffocate would-be competitors with it Sounds like a libertarian conspiracy theory to me, especially when we still don't know what these hypothetical regulations would look like. For instance if they make it easier to access your data, download and delete it they might somewhat weaken the lock-in effect of Facebook and level the playing field somewhat. Beyond that and even if…
> Sounds like a libertarian conspiracy theory to me, especially when we still don't know what these hypothetical regulations would look like. For instance if they make it easier to access your data, download and delete it they might somewhat weaken the lock-in effect of Facebook and level the playing field somewhat. What is the ask here? A ZIP with all your information? A JSON file with your friendship graph? How wou…
I genuinely don't have the answers to your questions. I'm just against shooting off the whole idea that there might be an answer worth considering because of the dogma held by some people that "regulations == bad". Let's wait until we actually see what these people propose (which at this point might very well be nothing at all), then we can scream bloody outrage that our freedom is in danger.
If something needs to be done let's at least give one chance to the people who seem to be trying to do something.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
#133A photographer present at the hearings was able to get a picture of the notes Zuckerberg brought: https://twitter.com/becket/status/983846618263891968.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Which sites is that on? When webmasters use Facebook comments or authentication that gets inserted?
All websites where the webmaster wants to leverage Facebook's ads and retargeting. So probably half the websites out there.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
#135Cambridge Analytica was probably a "Pearl Harbor" moment for the US government, they probably wanted to put regulations on Facebook for a long time.
Yet it is not new and how is it different than when Obama did it?
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-...
Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
#136Damn social logins. The biggest one is Spotify. They require you to make a whole new account instead of just unlinking your FB one, and then all of your playlists etc are gone. I’m going to set aside a day to migrate all of my services, but it’s going to be a pain. Worth it.
I did this a couple months ago. You can share playlists from your original account with your new account and copy them over. You can even make a playlist of your saved songs and and save them all at once to your new library (select all > Save to your Library)
Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
#137Damn social logins. The biggest one is Spotify. They require you to make a whole new account instead of just unlinking your FB one, and then all of your playlists etc are gone. I’m going to set aside a day to migrate all of my services, but it’s going to be a pain. Worth it.
I did this a couple months ago. You can share playlists from your original account with your new account and copy them over. You can even make a playlist of your saved songs and and save them all at once to your new library (select all > Save to your Library)
Awesome, thanks for the tips.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a good explanation of why this hearing was so poorly designed such that nothing could be discovered. I highly doubt it was accidental.
What type of discovery would you like to make? It seems to me that whatever fb has they control and do with as they please and have the money for lobbyists and lawyers to corporate-splain their actions away and pay the occasional fine (cost of doing business). I'm having a hard time understanding why any of what is known is at all a surprise to someone who understands tech.
>I'm having a hard time understanding why any of what is known is at all a surprise to someone who understands tech.
The vast majority of FB users don't understand tech, and that's the root problem.
These hearings aren't for technical minded people. If they were, there would be technical minded people asking the questions.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I couldn't agree more, the world wide web is definitely just a piece of the internet. I remember the battles over chat protocols, the scourge of p2p protocols and even the move from email to webmail and back again. The web has always been a bit contentious for instance the browser wars are still being fought in some way even today. The problem is that the web is where developers were able to build without concern ove…
the scourge of p2p protocols
Surely, you aren't suggesting p2p itself is conceptually an abomination in general?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham
#140Earlier 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…
The UK has been framing the House of Lords as a council of experts for a while now. I don't know how well it actually works as one though.
It's basically pot luck, unfortunately.
Sometimes the Lords have quite enlightened debates, where several contributors clearly do have expert knowledge in a field and others do respect that and politely defer to those with more relevant experience. Consequently, sometimes they really do send proposed laws back to the Commons with helpful amendments suggested.
However, sometimes they have no idea what they're talking about at all. It's not unusual to see a committee of Lords hearing evidence from high-ranking civil servants on some issue where the entire session looks like one old, rich, out-of-touch person after another declaring an interest due to their own business activities and all of them collectively missing the point for several hours.
It's not a universal truth, but I'm afraid discussions around science and technology subjects tend to fall into the latter category, other than perhaps on medical matters, where there does seem to be enough knowledge and expertise within the Lords to allow constructive and intelligent debate.