Someone wake me up if a Senator asks about how Obama did basically the same thing and nobody cared. Or Sheryl Sandberg emailing with Podesta and colluding to get Hillary elected... otherwise his law firm basically already published what he planned to say.
Yep. Sounds like they need to tweak that AI they are so proud of.Conservative views = terrorism
And there it was.. the straight up claim that the reason Trump won was because of Facebook.
Oooohhhh.. targeted ads for people in specific places.
I guess that candidates better not be allowed to run any ads or send out flyers or cards ever again. Or even campaign for that matter.
How do you get cyborg? Are you referring to the weird twitch he's developing with his neck?Jesus christ he looks like a Cyborg. Didn't want to wear his hoodie today?
What seems to be the most funny in this, besides Zuck getting completely decimated so far, is that Ted Cruz decided to divide people further based on political affiliation instead of focusing on what this questioning is actually about. Blumenthal completely annihilated Zuck with his questions without bringing up any kind of political influence or agenda in any way. Maybe I misunderstood what the questioning was for; as I understand it, it's supposed to be about the data outage by Cambridge Analytica, which has nothing to do with which political views anyone has. Save that for another hearing or questioning line where it's appropriate. Should they block/ban/remove pages for differing political views? IMO, absolutely not, but remove/ban individuals that provoke and instigate toxicity/racism/hatred on any "side" (we're all people who have quite a lot in common if we actually sat down to think and/or talk to each other); it doesn't take any of those items to express your opinion, and if you can't express your opinion without those things, you don't really understand what it is you believe or why.
Edit: I may be mistaken, I've heard a few other questions regarding what Facebook "polices" as far as content. If this was a general questioning session that wasn't limited to the data leakage/outage, then I don't see any issues with the questions asked, and they should be answered truthfully, if pages are being removed simply based on the political affiliation without sufficient reasoning, then FB is wrong all around.
But here's the thing; OBAMA IS NOT PRESIDENT. The reason why there's concern about Trump is because he won, he's the president, so he's the problem. Same reason why Nixon was a problem when he was president. Then, once he resigned what happened? He was pardoned and after that, basically forgotten. People didn't care so much anymore because he wasn't in power, he could no longer cause problems. The current administration is always going to be the one in the spotlight, and rightly so: They are the ones with the power. Once they are out of power, it is no longer such a big deal.
That aside, the idea that someone got away with something in the past means that someone how should get a pass is retarded. By that logic, nobody can ever be held accountable for anything. It is 100% valid to say "This has been a problem for a long time but it stops now, we are no longer going to allow it."
Finally the "ebil Democrats" thing rings a little hollow, given that the Republicans have controlled both houses of congress for some time now. So, if this was such a problem with Obama... why didn't they do anything? Why didn't they hold any kind of inquiry? It isn't like they were adverse to doing investigations, even ones that appeared to be highly political in nature.
Just to clear it up, the hearing is about Facebook gathering data and that data being available to other apps and other companies to mine and then use Facebook as a platform to influence people. In the case of Cambridge Analytica it is contended that they used Facebook users information to do targeted campaign ads and may have been involved in the Russian meddling scheme.
So Facebook being asked about their bias is definitely part of the hearing. Facebook has actively said it is filtering information based either on "Fake News" or "Terrorism" yet users are getting reduced content and filtering based on "community safety". Zuckerberg refused to truly answer that question on how they are doing this, or why conservative pages are specifically being targeted and filtered, especially when the content was not fake news.
P.P.S. This post is like Zuckerberg's testimony. It's up to you to decide how much of it is a lie. Take the blue pill, and you can continue to believe ... whatever you want to believe.
P.P.P.S. Do NOT take the red pill. Remember what Morpheus says about the red pill.