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

471–480 of 487 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#471

Post by PascLeRasc »

denzil_correa wrote: post #430
robin_reala wrote: post #421

This image from Reddit purports to be Mark’s notes from the meeting: https://i.redd.it/egi0jlf096r01.jpg . Some interesting stuff in there if true.

“Don’t say we already do what GDPR requires” “Lots of stories about apps misusing Apple Data. Never heard of Apple notifying anyone”

That's funny when Tim Cook immediately addressed concerns about FBI backdoors and there's a wealth of information on Apple's website about how they use local data protection with the secure enclave, and iOS 11 gives you information on protecting your personal information when you install it.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#472

Post by lakechfoma »

dragonwriter wrote: post #469
lakechfoma wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I know...the number of underhanded partisan questioning or advertising from these senators was sad.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#473

Post by badminton1 »

chatmasta wrote: post #450
badminton1 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people have reported seeing real estate apps targeting a specific race, and noticed this using the "Why are you seeing this ad?" functionality as well. There's legislation that prohibits this kind of discrimination.

Is it discrimination if the company still accepts and fairly considers applications from other races? Or if the real estate agent will happily sell a house to anyone no matter their race? Whom you advertise to is not the same as from whom you accept applications. Even if an ad targeted “everyone,” it would still only be targeted to everyone on Facebook , so non-Facebook users could not see it. Is that discriminating…

I disagree.

Advertising is one of the inputs to your sales pipeline. Filtering advertising audience by race and filtering applications by race in the end has the same result: having more applicants of a specific race.

I do not think race should be a factor when it comes to choosing your audience. Interests or geographic location might be OK, race is not. And remember: there's legislation for this when it comes to real estate.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#474

Post by Anderkent »

brandon272 wrote: post #168
Anderkent wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far left very much engages in hate speech. Kill all white people etc etc. You can try to true scotsman that, but you can do the same for the far right.

Who on the left is suggesting that all white people be killed? Ted Nugent has actually suggested executing Democrats, recently. Not only did he say it, but there was no backlash from the right.

Eg https://www.buzzfeed.com/katienotopoulos/how-trolls-locked-m...

And before you say it wasn’t meant literally - very obviously what Nugent says isn’t literal either. He’s a crazy old man, but he said if you see a coyote you shoot it and allegorically compared this to verbally shutting down Democrats rather than engaging with them. In no way did he suggest shooting Democrats.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#475

Post by LifeLiverTransp »

r00fus wrote: post #176
chmln wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hate speech" and "objective" don't belong in the same sentence. It is a subjective term open to interpretation, which is why it's dangerous.

It has a definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Hate-speech, is a definition, so s/he/it who has the power to postulate definitions is defining what hate is. Power to the social-sys-admins!

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#476

Post by sctb »

EdSharkey wrote: post #282
threatofrain wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How may one speak to your children when you're not around? In other words, nearly every moment on the web...? Where is the red line? I think people are realizing just how much the web is shared.

I'll take my free speech instead, nanny. I'll raise my own kids and they'll grow up just fine, you freedom-hating, thought-policing busybody, YOU! The future you yearn for is a hellscape.

Please stop.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#477

Post by 18pfsmt »

lakechfoma wrote: post #472
dragonwriter wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There should be a panel of non-partisan people And right there is where your plan fails.

I know...the number of underhanded partisan questioning or advertising from these senators was sad.

I really liked your first post and building a platform to enable such things is completely simple. Please don't take the cynical/self-defeating attitude. Promotion is not my strong suit. Be careful with people that want to be the watchers of the watchers without laying out clear principles ahead of time.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#478

Post by cynoclast »

You can watch the whole thing here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?443543-1/facebook-ceo-mark-zuc...

My thought so far:

* he's fielding questions pretty well, honestly.

* He's donated to 46/55 of them: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/04/07/2326242/facebook-do...

* Facebook mostly funds democrats: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000033563&ty...

* Every single Democrat senator has brought up Russia

* This is being used to further the Russiagate narrative that benefits the DNC by distracting from [Democrat corruption](http://observer.com/2016/07/clinton-rewards-wasserman-schult...)

tl;dr: More protection of the establishment in what is superficially the grilling of a tech giant

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#479

Post by vqng »

mortdeus wrote: post #107
btown wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook doesn't delete all cookies (for instance, there's an `sb` cookie still set) in their logout response. They may choose not to do anything with the cookies that remain, but the technical answer to the question is yes. And even if they currently did delete all cookies, there's nothing from preventing them from introducing cookies that do remain. Zuck knows this is generally feasible - he's a talented software e…

This is all supposed to be politically scary and demonstrative of the fact that very few people actually knows what is going on. Which all the more scary to me because these are the people who are supposed to understand what's going on so they can have proper oversight. This entire issue reminds me of the time the supreme court tried to wrap their brains around the (finger quotes) "the cloud". What's really sad is th…

>>> This is all supposed to be politically scary and demonstrative of the fact that very few people actually knows what is going on.

I just realized we are not even talking about AI.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#480

Post by cynoclast »

robin_reala wrote: post #421

This image from Reddit purports to be Mark’s notes from the meeting: https://i.redd.it/egi0jlf096r01.jpg . Some interesting stuff in there if true.

I did not expect Lindsey Graham to rake him over the coals over their lack of a competitor. I'm not normally a fan of Graham having lived under his 'representation' for almost nine years. But I had to respect him for that bit.
Post reply on HN