I call BS on actual deleting all user data when someone deletes his account. If some whistle blower proves otherwise is he liable for prosecution for perjury?
He is not under oath in this case.
Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
261–270 of 487 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#262Mark Zuckerberg does not believe he has a monopoly. He believes there is an alternative to Facebook in the way that different car manufacturers have different competitors. Surely he can't mean this, right?
> Mark Zuckerberg does not believe he has a monopoly. I tend to agree with him. Facebook just happens to be the most popular Internet social network, right now , but there is nothing that makes it a monopoly. Anyone could replace it, there is nothing actively stopping them from doing so. I'm sure for decades the Ford Motor Company was thought of as a Monopoly... and then they went bankrupt, and that's just one compan…
"but there is nothing that makes it a monopoly."
"Anyone could replace it, there is nothing actively stopping them from doing so."
Lol ok.
Great example of how useless internet discussion has become. Totally divorced from reality.
Mega company Google tried to take on FB and lost.
Your "but in the future" definition of Monopoly is nonsense.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#263Some poor Senator just went on a rabbit hunt to discuss FB's bug bounty program. Who are these Congressional staffers? Tech illiteracy is on full-display; we're not even talking 'power-users' (who were on UseNet, btw), these people are lost. Zuckerberg had to be gracious and say his team would follow-up on many things that it was clear the Senator didn't even understand. This is supposed to be our smart chamber.
Disagree. Several controversial questions were dodged by saying his team would follow up. While it's attractive to paint politicians as incompetent buffoons, let's not forget each of them has their own staff and understands what it means to delegate to your staff and not have answers immediately on hand that only a staff expert would understand.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#264Some months ago I saw an job search website ad. I clicked "Why are you seeing this ad?", and it said it was targeted towards users between 24 and 37. How is this not enabling age discrimination?
Connecting people can be a good thing, but connecting people through discrimination is a completely different thing.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#265I guess I'm still confused about this matter. As I understand it, nothing was exploited. A company used intrinsic capabilities of the system to do a job. Are we just raising the question of whether this is an appropriate business model? I suppose that's a good discussion to have. I'm just a bit miffed that we're effectively holding another obscenities hearing while the only thing going on with the Equifax debacle is…
The way Cambridge Analytica's got its data was a little nefarious...as I understand it, they obtained data through ways Facebook discouraged (but still enabled). Whether you consider that an 'exploit' or not is subjective. It's certainly not an 'exploit' in the more common infosec sense. But the real issue here is that Facebook was complicit in electing Donald Trump. It's political.
i thought that the data flow was:
1. FB users took a personality survey conducted by some researchers at Cambridge University.
2. Then one of those researchers sold the data they'd collected on FB users to the newly formed Cambridge Analytica.
3. The Trump campaign employed CA and CA used this data to directly message FB users who'd completed the personality survey
At some point, FB learned of this unapproved resale of this data and requested that CA delete the data set. But CA did not delete the data set.
Assuming I have the story right, what I don't quite get is: why didn't FB start aggressively suing people who'd taken this data and misused it? FB could have started with a lawsuit against the researcher who sold the data in the first place.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#266Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was an answer to a question that wasn't asked. The senator was asking whether facebook owns that data it has about a person, and the answer was that you own what you post. Those are very different sets. A follow up to answer whether facebook believes it owns the data it's accumulated about you would've been great.
The lack of strong followup questions is the best indicator that there is very little about this hearing that is spontaneous and not defined in advance. As I write this, Ms Cantwell starts her questioning and it is a markedly different style. Interesting
> there is very little about this hearing that is spontaneous
but, isn't that pretty much always true about Congressional hearings?
it seems like they're just a platform for Senators and Congressional reps to get some high profile air time and maybe enhance their reputation amongst their voters.
and maybe, if they're lucky, some YouTuber will excerpt their "performance" and title it "Watch Senator XYZ DESTROY Mark Zuckerberg!!!"
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#268Did he just say that when an account is deleted, all the data are hard deleted (not just a boolean in a column)? It's really hard to believe.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#269Earlier 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.…
In the free society I want to live in, we ought to let people voice their opinions even when we disagree. There are limits to freedom of speech besides those put in place by the state.
Taken to an extreme for purely rhetorical purposes: if you get fired, black-balled, and publicly shamed for voicing any opinion, then do you live in a society with freedom of speech?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty#Of_the_liberty_of_t...
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a really odd line of questioning from people who don't seem to understand the subject matter. This gem made me laugh out loud: Senator: How do you sustain a business model in which users don't pay for your service? Zuckerberg (in a disdainful tone): Senator, we run ads. https://clips.twitch.tv/FantasticCrowdedDelicataPipeHype Edit: I directly transcribed the exchange
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…
> can you run a business that is free for some people and isn't ad based? ... [some users] subsidize [others].
Absolutely! Github, Dropbox, etc, that's how tons of "freemium" companies work.