Live - Zuckerberg Before Congress Pt 1

seanreisk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
1,711
Pfft!! Everyone knows that the green pill with the red stripe is where it's at. Duh!

Yes, yes, but the green pill always gives me gas, and that's how we got here in the first place.

....

Or Mark Zuckerberg. We either got here by talking about Mark Zuckerberg's testimony before congress, or me talking about my gas. I'm sure more people know about Mark Zuckerberg, so it's probably him, although my dog would disagree.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
52,500
A. Give me $5
B. Stop posting blatantly political posts as front page news and then get all-capslock when people comment on them
BYE_FELICIA.jpg
 

nightfly

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
3,115
do the Democrats think that the general populace is so stupid as to not be able to think for themselves?
Apparently both sides not only think that, but behave that way. And they're right. Because our education system intentionally leaves out any information on how to find out where candidates stand on issues, as well as not providing any knowledge of how to find out what bills are voted on, who wrote them, and who voted for each. Granted, it's not rocket science; any reasonable intelligent person can figure it all out. But even most of them don't, so we do not have informed voters. Pretty much NO ONE pays attention to a candidate's voting record in their previous position; all they know is what the candidate and/or the opposition tells them in commercials. So, basically nothing. We've had over a year of this administration, and still, most people (neither those who voted for him, OR against him) have no other knowledge about Trump's past business practices other than he was on a TV show; they just take his word that he's a business genius, probably mainly because he's been promoting himself forever, and plastering his name on a few big buildings, and, of course, casino's.
Yes, the population is generally stupid. Both sides. The powers that be have a very strong interest in keeping us that way.
 

NukeDukem

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
2,476
I find it hilarious that, since the election of our current President, we're all (the media and congress is) so suddenly concerned about Facebook selling our privacy. Along with being so suddenly concerned about foreign influences on our elections, men sexually abusing women, and "gun" violence.

You have to love the manufactured outrage over issues that have been with us for years, and in some cases centuries. It's as if everything was all sunshine and rainbows before SHE was denied HER turn, so now we're going to stamp our feet like toddlers and scream at the world.

Trying not to make it about politics here, but I honestly believe none of this would be going on if the "right" candidate had won in November 2016. It would be BUSINESS AS USUAL.
 
Last edited:

Zion Halcyon

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
2,108
I find it hilarious that, since the election of our current President, we're all (the media and congress is) so suddenly concerned about Facebook selling our privacy. Along with being so suddenly concerned about foreign influences on our elections, men sexually abusing women, and "gun" violence.

You have to love the manufactured outrage over issues that have been with us for years, and in some cases centuries. It's as if everything was all sunshine and rainbows before SHE was denied HER turn, so now we're going to stamp our feet like toddlers and scream at the world.

Trying not to make it about politics here, but I honestly believe none of this would be going on if the "right" candidate had won in November 2016. It would be BUSINESS AS USUAL.

We have what we have now because people got tired of business as usual. The people who were tired of business-as-usual are very happy. Those who wanted business-as-usual to continue are very upset and waste their time pretending to be people who were tired of business as usual but now are having second thoughts and regret their vote, yet fooling no one.

The demon screams the loudest before it is exorcised.
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
9,140
I watched some of it. Not that I think old people don't understand computers today, but did any of them really even understand some of the stuff he said? Also it might have been easier to just have him submit any questions in writing.
There were quite a few people there. Is that our tax dollars at work?
 

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
3,556
It's more humiliating in front of Congress and the Country on live TV than a questionnaire. What he said in "computerese" matters not, it's an apology that comes across as Sincere. It is the Country extracting an apology. You paid for it, yes. Now enjoy it.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
2,153
Why do you think there is such a second amendment uproar lately, it's not about the killing of innocents. It's fear of retaliation toward unfathomable corruption and crime.
Which is kinda ironic. One of the first instances of gun control was former slave owners ensuring that freed slaves couldn't legally own firearms because of the off chance that they'd seek revenge.
 

Zion Halcyon

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
2,108
Did anyone notice that Zuckerberg open Facebook up to litigation? By saying they are responsible for the content on their site, that makes them legally a publisher. What this means is they are now financially responsible for content on their site and that's now are no longer protected under fair use and can be sued.
 
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
682
What a shitshow. A bunch of old men reading a stack of prepared questions which they don't understand, a pale deep-sea creature trying to be human, answering tthe row of dads' questions when - if anyone was awake for the last 10 years - the answers are found by simply looking at Facebook's business plan.

I hate to say it, but Zuck and FB are the sacrificial lambs / scapegoats here. They are being hung for the crimes of the system: one that allows an organization like Cambridge Analytica to operate under all radars, to influence elections, to sell data to whomever they please. FB are just the scab or a festering disease that if peeled back, would reveal deep layers of Orwellian Big Brother manipulation of entire populations engaged in by multiple governments, often in collusion, sometimes at odds, but all aware of the game and all agreeing to play.

The system needs to stay in the dark, so FB gets shoved into the light. Yeah, fuck 'em, for sure....fuck 'em all, I say. This circus will end with FB being punished while the real players recede into the darkness once again.

We are being played here folks. Make no mistake. This is a dog and pony show just for us.
 

krotch

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
4,509
I always hate these type of government "meetings". They could have easily sent him certified mail of what they want to ask and have him send back his responses via mail. Then publish the mail on their website for the public to view. Hell, make him send 2 responses. One less technical and one more technical.

You aren't going to get much of anything from these hearings on video. Why he's always saying,"My team will get with you after this."
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,460
I hope they decide to make those answers public, but I'm sure they won't.

Oh they will be part of the public record for congress. But effectively they wont because how many people do you know will go look at that? He knows most wont know they can or wont care to so effectively he side stepped it.
 

krotch

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
4,509
Oh they will be part of the public record for congress. But effectively they wont because how many people do you know will go look at that? He knows most wont know they can or wont care to so effectively he side stepped it.

Sounds about right. I'm thinking some Tech websites will zero in on it, but most won't ever look at tech websites or even know of any tech websites. Maybe could show up on your larger, more known sites.
 

lostin3d

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
2,043
I did find it amusing this morning on the local news when they played a clip of them trying to pressure Zuck into personally committing to advocating for the truth behind advertising bill they're pushing. He clearly dodged it and simply stated he doesn't go to D.C. often but would send a team instead.
 

spugm1r3

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
1,153
Was anyone else thrown off by Zuck in a suit? I was dead certain he just had American Apparel build a store in lieu of a closet.
 

fuzzylogik

Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
653
To add some additional information:

From 2013 (whole thing is interesting but really starts at about 4:30 in):

From: Jim Messina - Obama campaign manager

"...We built this thing called targeted sharing... It allowed us to use Facebook to persuade people. We spend a billion dollars to figure out a simple truth: What your friends and family and neighbors say is more important to your consumer decisions and your political decisions than anything else..."

Quote starting at 19 minutes in - from 2015...

From: Carol Davidson - Director of Integration and Media Analytics - Obama campaign

"...2012 Election had the ability for people to opt in. The Obama campaign, like, rocked this, right?...the privacy policies at that time on Facebook were if they opted in, they could tell us who all their friends were...but we were actually able to ingest the entire social network... which is most people...that freaked Facebook out, right? So they shut off the feature... So the data is out there. You can't take it back, right?"
and
"...this will happen in the 2016 cycle... whether or not people want to pay to be able to do this..."

But really, according to Carol - FB didn't have a problem with it.

// Facebook stopped this practice in 2015. Apparently the data that CA has is from before this was stopped.

CNN in 2012 on this:


And even though this was fully known and folks were impressed with this understanding of technology - it's only now that people have a problem with it.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,853
To add some additional information:

From 2013 (whole thing is interesting but really starts at about 4:30 in):

From: Jim Messina - Obama campaign manager

"...We built this thing called targeted sharing... It allowed us to use Facebook to persuade people. We spend a billion dollars to figure out a simple truth: What your friends and family and neighbors say is more important to your consumer decisions and your political decisions than anything else..."

Quote starting at 19 minutes in - from 2015...

From: Carol Davidson - Director of Integration and Media Analytics - Obama campaign

"...2012 Election had the ability for people to opt in. The Obama campaign, like, rocked this, right?...the privacy policies at that time on Facebook were if they opted in, they could tell us who all their friends were...but we were actually able to ingest the entire social network... which is most people...that freaked Facebook out, right? So they shut off the feature... So the data is out there. You can't take it back, right?"
and
"...this will happen in the 2016 cycle... whether or not people want to pay to be able to do this..."

But really, according to Carol - FB didn't have a problem with it.

// Facebook stopped this practice in 2015. Apparently the data that CA has is from before this was stopped.

CNN in 2012 on this:


And even though this was fully known and folks were impressed with this understanding of technology - it's only now that people have a problem with it.


Soooo, your saying just do nothing about it? Or maybe use this momentum today to push back some of the overstep?
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
One thing I noticed in this hearing what Zucker'Borg' saying that Facebook very definitely does not sell data. And then admitting they messed up and sold data to Cambridge Analytics. So which is it? Do they sell data or not?
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
14,722
One thing I noticed in this hearing what Zucker'Borg' saying that Facebook very definitely does not sell data. And then admitting they messed up and sold data to Cambridge Analytics. So which is it? Do they sell data or not?

One of the developers that puts apps on Facebook sold the data.. not Facebook itself. Or at least that is what I understood from the grilling yesterday.
 

MarkVI

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
215
What I found interesting is how Zuckerberg interacts with politicians. He would get lulled to sleep by some moron asking tech illiterate questions then the next questioner would trip him effortlessly since clearly Zuck isn't as quick on his feet as politicians that do this stuff for a living. The one who asked him about his hotel room really took him by surprise. The nervous laughter sounded out of sorts with the unflappable demeanor he was so clearly going for. It's such a weird skill mismatch between questioner and questioned.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
One of the developers that puts apps on Facebook sold the data.. not Facebook itself. Or at least that is what I understood from the grilling yesterday.

And yet Zucker'Borg' clearly said that 'they', Facebook, sold the data. That is what he was apologizing for. Also he is just trying to whitewash what they are doing. He was trying to say they don't sell data, just access to information...which is data. Also he pawned off their collection of data from phones onto Android. Android doesn't make them collect certain data from the phone, Facebook chooses to do that, and Facebook is the one that chooses how they use it. Notice he only deflected the claims about phone calls, not about other data on the phone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blkt
like this

fuzzylogik

Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
653
Soooo, your saying just do nothing about it? Or maybe use this momentum today to push back some of the overstep?

I'm just pointing out that one group was allowed to do this "because they were on our side" and the current outrage against the 'other side' doing practically the same thing. People knowingly accepted (or not, which is the typical issue with 'shrinkwrap' terms of agreement that most people just ignore) and allowed their information and their friends to be used. I have no idea if there are laws on the books for these types of agreements or not - but it's silly to punish one group while actively ignoring others that complied significantly more information. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any overstep (especially since they were all operating within the rules at the time) - or else this would have been brought up some 6 years ago when this was first publicly reported, right? :/

//People can certainly push back by not using social media like Facebook.
 

Susquehannock

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
4,118
One of the developers that puts apps on Facebook sold the data.. not Facebook itself. Or at least that is what I understood from the grilling yesterday.
That is correct. At least in relation to the Cambridge Analytica breech. FB users wanting to play games or take quizes clicked "allow" at top of a sub screen which clearly stated they would be giving the app access to everything, personal information, private messages, friends list, etc ... those 3rd parties then sold the data to whomever they wished.

Being perpetrated by 3rd party apps provides a degree of separation for FB. Still a violation of trust in my eyes, even if not clearly stated in TOS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blkt
like this

James Robinson

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
292
From what I understand... it wasn't a grilling, more like a stroking..... softball bullshit and feigned ignorance the whole time
 
Top