Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Turns down UK Parliament Request to be Interviewed

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,268
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has again turned down an invitation from UK and Canadian lawmakers to appear in London to politely discuss disinformation and fake news on the social media site. Instead of sending Mr. Zuckerberg to be questioned about Cambridge Analytica and other issues, Facebook announced via a letter that they are sending senior executives from the company to the meeting. This did not sit well with the lawmakers as more countries joined the call for Zuckerberg to appear.

"We are very disappointed by this dismissive response," the signatories wrote. Zuckerberg should give the 170 million collective users in these countries "the same line of accountability" that they gave users in the U.S. and European Union by showing up to confront lawmakers directly, they said, restating their request for the chief executive to attend the hearing.
 
zuckbook can dive off a cliff, but i can't blame him. i'd have no interest in such a thing either. it's too much of a show - not enough of an actual problem-solving exercise
 
And US laws a joke to. Companies are too big to fail, and if they get penalized for millions of dollars, they can write it off on taxes.
 
All the way back to 2000, the fix was in. How can you people be so naive?
 
Really, are you trying to be naive? Are you trying to be ignorant?
 
Oh no Zuckerberg doesn't want to go all over the world to be interviewed by umpteen countries and all their different laws and rules how it pertains to a website that THEIR citizens go to. I'd send some "senior execs" too, who drew the short straw? You're going to London! Like it'll mean anything more with the CEO of the company there to deal with allegations and crap.
 
He's a learning machine.

BE6k9xg.jpg


Won't make that mistake twice, he'll just block you
 
NeghVar said:
I would not be surprised if the plan was to arrest him upon setting foot in those countries so they could charge him with privacy law violations.
Click to expand...

That would be easier but some of those countries have extradition treaties with the US. I would like to see this asshat fry.
 
Yeah, yeah, a lot of people don't like Facebook. Whatever. Still, being called to a thousand hearings by a thousand governments is not going to do anything to fix any issues they might have with the system in place. They only want him to show up for a news bite of them challenging the head of a powerful company so they can use it on their next re-election campaign. If they gave a shit about anyone's privacy, fake news (shared by their own citizens), or anything else they were doing they'd instead be interviewing boring people who understand various types of computer systems, sociologists, psychologists, and other subject matter experts. But, those people are boring to listen to because they're stupid smart and nobody knows their names. Instead they want a powerful and high profile guy to sit in front of them so they can rant and rave about the rights of their constituents and appear like they're doing something, which they're not.

I'd do the same thing in Zuckerberg's shoes. Deny them their sound bite. They're not going to do shit to him if he refuses. Go ahead, ban Facebook in your country and see how quickly you get elected next time around.
 
Facebook? Accountability? That is like holding the mass media outlets in America accountable, not going to happen. :D
 
Facebook users chose to join Facebook and chose to put requests to all their friends on it and chose to share all their private information with advertisers so they could look at the new pictures of the Grandkids and not pay a dime for Facebook. We also choose to use Google or anything like it without paying to use it. Every such group has to monetize somehow. Selling user data isn't some shock to me as it is to everyone else. I expected it from day one. What is this right to privacy that you gave up the moment you started giving all your data away? Makes little sense to me. I hope he frys because "i'm an idiot" is all I hear.
 
Laowai said:
What consequences?
Click to expand...

A net income of about 5 billion in quarter 3 of 2018? If I was Zuckerberg, I would duck and cover for as long as I could, rake in the money and invest as much as I could in assets hard to pry loose when FB does a face plant.
 
Vader1975 said:
Facebook users chose to join Facebook and chose to put requests to all their friends on it and chose to share all their private information with advertisers so they could look at the new pictures of the Grandkids and not pay a dime for Facebook. We also choose to use Google or anything like it without paying to use it. Every such group has to monetize somehow. Selling user data isn't some shock to me as it is to everyone else. I expected it from day one. What is this right to privacy that you gave up the moment you started giving all your data away? Makes little sense to me. I hope he frys because "i'm an idiot" is all I hear.
Click to expand...

No there is a BIG difference between selling the "public" data I put on the profile vs the private info. There is an even BIGGER difference when you start collecting data w/out my knowledge about my movements and who might be near me etc and then selling that. In short if I consent to some data being public I expect it to be used and sold, if I mark it private I expect that to be respected. If I chose not to tell them where I have been then I didnt consent to them tracking me via other means. So no its not just idiots complaining. They went too far and did not do a good job communicating their intent. Intentionally so because they knew if people really knew what they were doing with the data they would NEVER get it.

Think about that for a minute. If they told you everything they are doing, and I mean all the things coming out (like that patent), do you think you would have signed up anyway? If so then youre probably not complaining anyway...
 
I expect no privacy about any data entered "online." none at all. I see people all upset that they expected something to remain private that they put online because they clicked little box's and I lol. Even the IRS has been hacked twice through their "online" interfaces. Sony, IRS, Microsoft, Yahoo, GM, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and countless others. Even if a company didn't sell your data expect it to be hacked. Just look at Equifax who never should of had the power that they have in the first place get hacked. Anything you have online expect no privacy.
 
Vader1975 said:
I expect no privacy about any data entered "online." none at all. I see people all upset that they expected something to remain private that they put online because they clicked little box's and I lol. Even the IRS has been hacked twice through their "online" interfaces. Sony, IRS, Microsoft, Yahoo, GM, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and countless others. Even if a company didn't sell your data expect it to be hacked. Just look at Equifax who never should of had the power that they have in the first place get hacked. Anything you have online expect no privacy.
Click to expand...

Hacked is a far cry different from sold or collected without your permission and sold.
 
kju1 said:
No there is a BIG difference between selling the "public" data I put on the profile vs the private info. There is an even BIGGER difference when you start collecting data w/out my knowledge about my movements and who might be near me etc and then selling that. In short if I consent to some data being public I expect it to be used and sold, if I mark it private I expect that to be respected. If I chose not to tell them where I have been then I didnt consent to them tracking me via other means. So no its not just idiots complaining. They went too far and did not do a good job communicating their intent. Intentionally so because they knew if people really knew what they were doing with the data they would NEVER get it.

Think about that for a minute. If they told you everything they are doing, and I mean all the things coming out (like that patent), do you think you would have signed up anyway? If so then youre probably not complaining anyway...
Click to expand...

The problem with people today and this age is they are so ignorant about their privacy and their information and all of the problems that reside with said ignorance. I keep my foot print to a minimum. I do not do online banking. I leave out info that certain sites need like my cell phone and so on.

All of my friends have been hacked... they have all have had been compromised... credit card information, bank info and so on. I do everything hard copy... You know checks and CASH with little credit card usage except for an occasional item to keep the card active and not online.

These simple things reduce your internet foot print a bit... Not all of it but it helps. To the many predatory corporations such as Face plate and Twitter I'm not there customer base. They like easier prey to make money off of.
 
In this day and age it's extremely naive to assume anything you do online isn't being collected, monitored, analyzed, used, sold, etc.

I think the public would be better served by PSA's to give them a wakeup call about internet "privacy" being an illusion rather than the mock grillings

What's much more concerning to me is things like the Equifax breach where user's had no say in the extremely sensitive data being collected \ stored. At the end of the day if the government can't even manage any meaningful actions regarding this then more minor offences like FB are a total waste of resources.
 
kju1 said:
That would be easier but some of those countries have extradition treaties with the US. I would like to see this asshat fry.
Click to expand...

I'll never understand these extradition treaties. Being accused of violating a country's laws and they have the right to demand extradition even if you've never set foot in it. I mean this as referring to anyone. Not just Mark.
 
NeghVar said:
I'll never understand these extradition treaties. Being accused of violating a country's laws and they have the right to demand extradition even if you've never set foot in it. I mean this as referring to anyone. Not just Mark.
Click to expand...

Well typically they were meant to cover individuals that broke the law while in the host country (i.e. committed a murder) and left before they could be caught. Its a way for countries to ensure that if their citizens do bad shit in another land that a war wont necessarily start because that citizen will get handed over to the other country for justice.
 
kju1 said:
Well typically they were meant to cover individuals that broke the law while in the host country (i.e. committed a murder) and left before they could be caught. Its a way for countries to ensure that if their citizens do bad shit in another land that a war wont necessarily start because that citizen will get handed over to the other country for justice.
Click to expand...
I understand the physical side. Snowden would be a good example. But I meant situations like what the GDPR has created.
 
kju1 said:
Hacked is a far cry different from sold or collected without your permission and sold.
Click to expand...

I agree with this in general. Putting aside for the moment whether or not permission was given.... My main problem is with how people are treating Facebook like it is pure evil when in fact it is an organization that made a mistake, tried to correct it, did not do a great job of correcting it, and ultimately had the whole situation blow up badly, but well out of proportion to the "Crime" quite frankly.

An evil organization would have tried to monetize the exploit of Open Graph. Facebook tried to shut it down, and mostly did so. So clearly they aren't evil, they are more "normal people who screw up sometimes"... They farked up and didn't shut it down and clean up the mess properly, but they did try to make it better. They are ultimately just people, and people make mistakes and do stupid things, which sometimes blow up in their faces.

It is like if you own convenience store and you accidentally drop a bottle of soda that shatters and gets the floor all wet (yes, accident, because they never intended for Open Graph to be exploited this way). You go run and grab a mop and clean it up (policy change, tell dude to delete data), but forget to put out wet floor signs (don't push hard enough to ensure the data is cleaned up), and someone slips and hurts themselves (He sells it and it is exploited). You are RESPONSIBLE, and should be held ACCOUNTABLE, but you aren't EVIL. You certainly shouldn't have your entire store burned to the ground because of this one mistake (people wanting Facebook to end entirely).



One other thing to consider, everyone who's data was harvested did ultimately get free shit in exchange for that data did technically consent to letting Facebook use this data pretty much however they liked. Did you notice that other than a class-action settlement money-grab (easy money for a bunch of lawyers), there is no real legal action around this? The Fed's aren't really coming down on them (no company wide indictment) because Facebook didn't actually break any laws. The lawsuit is going to be settled, if anything happens at all, because nobody wan'ts Mark on a stand. But that doesn't mean the suit has any real merit. So Facebook users can bitch and moan about the details of how it was gathered and exploited, but they fundamentally did tell Facebook "Here is all my info, do with it as you will as long as I get to use your platform".

So the original sentiment stands.... If you don't want to have data gathered about you then don't put the data out there to be collected. To take it further though, this is ESPECIALLY important when the entire business model of the person you are giving is to monetize it by sharing it with others.
 
Kardonxt said:
In this day and age it's extremely naive to assume anything you do online isn't being collected, monitored, analyzed, used, sold, etc.

I think the public would be better served by PSA's to give them a wakeup call about internet "privacy" being an illusion rather than the mock grillings

What's much more concerning to me is things like the Equifax breach where user's had no say in the extremely sensitive data being collected \ stored. At the end of the day if the government can't even manage any meaningful actions regarding this then more minor offences like FB are a total waste of resources.
Click to expand...

Equifax shoudn't exist. Their power shouldn't exist. Their numerics and how they function arn't even regulated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top