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

461–470 of 487 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#461

Post by icc97 »

croon wrote: post #431
dschuetz wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's an interesting juxtaposition. His life achievement would then be "he connected people all over the world" but what he essentially did "was selling ads and he was good at it". There's always a middle ground. You give up a bit of privacy and benefit from some product "free of charge". See? The questions are how much is "a bit", who decides what is in it and who decides who gets what? To agree on middle grou…

There's no business incentive to scale down your ad sales even if you charged your users for the service. I agree with you that there needs to be ground rules/terms, but in the form of regulation. If Google chose a middle ground, they'd give away the Pixel phones for free, or at least heavily subsidized. But they don't have to, so they don't. If no one stops you, sell on both ends.

> There's no business incentive to scale down your ad sales even if you charged your users for the service.

There's arguments for and against this:

For: Newspapers and magazines are an example of selling a product full of advertising.

Against: However many online businesses and a lot of iOS/Android apps do offer paid plans that turn off the ads and nothing else.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#462

Post by Simulacra »

andegre wrote: post #76
Simulacra wrote: post #40

Is it just me, or does he sound condescending every time he responds, like he's educating a subordinate he's frustrated with.

Have you seen the movie?

Ah, good point. I avoided the movie because I have a great disdain for Mark.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#463

Post by davvolun »

ygaf wrote: post #187
davvolun wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel fairly confident I don't need to use 'no true scotsman' to argue the fact that no one with a "D" after their name asking Zuckerberg a question today has ever said "Kill all white people." On the other hand, Cruz wasted our time, and more importantly, the time any other member of Congress would have had to ask something important, asking Zuckerberg about a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day page that was deleted for…

>no one with a "D" after their name asking Zuckerberg a question today I can't even see where the goalposts have gone.

> Ted Cruz clearly showing that he's a partisan hack. Didn't give a crap about users' privacy or the issues at hand, he had to make it about 'liberal Silicon Valley' and 'conservative persecution'. What a joke.

Couple of different "goal posts" here

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#464

Post by davvolun »

atsushin wrote: post #341

The senators involved with the hearing certainly had some good questions, but some of the topics appeared scattershot and could have benefited from a narrower focus on FB's data collection and technical issues, though obviously the Senators and staff would need to understand the issues at a deeper level. However, touching on the issue of data ownership and the terms of service for both FB and Kogan's app was a somewh…

Thank you. Sasse, in particular, really likes to sound smart, but hasn't done anything worth a damn.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#465

Post by rootusrootus »

HumanDrivenDev wrote: post #398
rootusrootus wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone comes along with a service that fulfills the same niche that Facebook does, charges $9/month, and has a guaranteed (audited) enforcement of personal privacy ... I'd do it. I like being connected to my family & some friends. The problem is getting from zero to critical mass with that model. Though I guess that doesn't stop a lot of other companies with less plausible revenue sources from getting seemingly e…

9USD a month is a consequential amount of money for a huge chunk of the population of even developed countries.

I agree. Like every other product in the world, I would base the price on what the local market supports.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it would ever work, because I may value my privacy at more than a few bucks a month, but it's a near certainty that the vast majority of the population disagrees with me. They don't see the cost there, so they ignore it. By the time they ever realize what it was they gave up and for how little, it's too late.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#466

Post by lakechfoma »

nopriorarrests wrote: post #238
lakechfoma wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he was trying to get at something here though: can you run a business that is free for some people and isn't ad based? To which I think the answer could be nuanced. Maybe a large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population that doesn't have that privilege. Note I'm not actually advocating that, just saying I want to give the guy a benefit of the doubt that he was trying…

>large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population Just in case, FB ARPU in US in Q4 2017 was $27. People who talk about "i ready to pay 10$ per year if im not tracked and not exposed to ads" _seriously_ underestimate FB money-printing ability. Think about it, FB makes almost as much as NFLX per US user (admittedly in Q4, the hottest quarter in advertising), but you dont need to…

I wonder two things though. 1) would their operating costs be lower if their infrastructure wasn't designed around this user tracking and advertising model? 2) regardless of the answer to number #1 but especially if that answer is yes, do they _need_ an ARPU of $27 to get by? Could they survive on $10? (of course I recognize not everyone can pay that, it's a privilege etc)

Yeah I understand the goal of capitalist companies is to endlessly print more money for the shareholders and the promise of ever better advertising enables FB to keep pulling in the dough. But maybe something like social media shouldn't operate in that context.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#467

Post by nunya213 »

kevindqc wrote: post #179
nunya213 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not actively peddling hate speech but the left is certainly active in interfering with free speech.

What do you mean? Is the left jailing people for talking? That's news to me. As far as I know, people are still free to say what they want? Doesn't mean they don't get any consequences though. Or that other people are forced to give them an ear. Take Laura Ingraham. She's free to make fun of the Parkland survivors and she did. She's also losing her advertisers as a consequence of being a poor excuse of a human being.…

No you aren't obligated to give her a platform. But if you go stage a protest so unruly that you block her from speaking at a College Campus for instance you have effectively negated her right to free speech. Are you really so infantile that hearing her words will ruin your life? Are they really so dangerous that you can't engage in a debate instead? I am a staunch liberal and the arguments about this coming from the left are truly mind boggling and very troublesome.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#468

Post by lakechfoma »

18pfsmt wrote: post #229
lakechfoma wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he was trying to get at something here though: can you run a business that is free for some people and isn't ad based? To which I think the answer could be nuanced. Maybe a large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population that doesn't have that privilege. Note I'm not actually advocating that, just saying I want to give the guy a benefit of the doubt that he was trying…

None of these people (i.e. legislators) should be involved until/unless they decide to learn how this stuff works.

It sounded like no one even proofread and edited their questions or lines of reasoning. There should be a panel of non-partisan people, not even experts, taking the dumb out of their questions before they engage. It was a waste of time. Even some strong questions and ideas were shutdown because they couldn't formulate it, and then the internet turned it into another way to laugh at congress.

Maybe there needs to be an old-lawyer to SME translator doing the talking too. This person questions a SME on behalf of the senators and they can speak up or seek clarification when needed. Proofread questions and competent speech.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#469

Post by dragonwriter »

lakechfoma wrote: post #468
18pfsmt wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these people (i.e. legislators) should be involved until/unless they decide to learn how this stuff works.

It sounded like no one even proofread and edited their questions or lines of reasoning. There should be a panel of non-partisan people, not even experts, taking the dumb out of their questions before they engage. It was a waste of time. Even some strong questions and ideas were shutdown because they couldn't formulate it, and then the internet turned it into another way to laugh at congress. Maybe there needs to be a…

> There should be a panel of non-partisan people

And right there is where your plan fails.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#470

Post by bimr »

singingboyo wrote: post #442
Consultant32452 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe for a second that this much fuss would have been made over this issue if Trump had lost the election. Some law enforcement action may have been taken, but it wouldn't have been front page news. The reason for my quotes is that Trump is "unapproved" which is the explanation for the scale of the reaction. I don't particularly approve of him either, but considering the real motivations of the people writ…

Of course there wouldn't be as much fuss about it. Trump losing the election would imply that the attempts at influencing people were unsuccessful. At a glance, that would indicate that regulation is unnecessary (though detailed analysis could show otherwise).

So, in other words, only regulate to prevent challengers. This is precisely what Facebook and the political establishment hope to achieve.
Post reply on HN