Live - Zuckerberg Before Congress Pt 1

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
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.

No it doesn't, and this was something that Zucker'Borg' was clear on. Facebook is the one that decides to allow that app access to the data. It does not matter if the user clicks 'Allow', Facebook should never have let the app have that kind of control over the data that Facebook collects.

This is part of why Zucker'Borg' said they messed up and sold data. Charging an app to use their platform and allowing them access to information, is essentially selling the data.
 

Kaitian

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
4,870
Here are the Zuckerberg notes. At least two pages of it.
zuckerbergnotes.jpg


Basically the Diamond and Silk question threw a wrench into the gears because Zuckerberg had no clue how to respond to that. So he fell back to the terrorism excuse which basically implied that conservative views is terrorism.
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,290
I've been watching this since it started this morning. Lots of redundant questions.
Some of the congresspeople are flat out furious. Then others pulling out the "yes or no only" bullshit. It has been entertaining.
 

Seventyfive

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
1,347
Ah yes, the old days when Obama was running facebook and violating the privacy policy of 80m+ people, selling data to a FOREIGN company to use to sway US ellections. Pepperidge farm remembers...... /s

Seriously, wtf are you talking about??? None of that has any relevance in this thread. These god damn 'Wut about....' arguments are so effing stupid.

My evidence for my statement was deleted for being "political" but if you wanted to be open minded and actually see that this kind of thing has been happening for decades without anyone caring at all, the information is readily available with very little effort.
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,290
Oh what the fuck. He's getting grilled because he doesn't have more blacks on the board. Fucking CBC are a bunch of race baiters.
 

Susquehannock

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
4,129
No it doesn't, and this was something that Zucker'Borg' was clear on. Facebook is the one that decides to allow that app access to the data. It does not matter if the user clicks 'Allow', Facebook should never have let the app have that kind of control over the data that Facebook collects.

This is part of why Zucker'Borg' said they messed up and sold data. Charging an app to use their platform and allowing them access to information, is essentially selling the data.
Thoroughly agree with you there. Should never have happened. What I was trying to say is that unless there is some complex legalese in contract between FB and 3rd party that states FB is still responsible for how the data is used and distributed once sold & out of their control, there will be a measure of disconnect.
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,290
Thoroughly agree with you there. What I was trying to say is that unless there is some complex legalese in contract between FB and 3rd party that states FB is still responsible for how the data is used and distributed once sold & out of their control, there will be a measure of disconnect.

They are discussing exactly this right now
 

SomeoneElse

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,940
Oh what the fuck. He's getting grilled because he doesn't have more blacks on the board. Fucking CBC are a bunch of race baiters.
I love how that was brought up even though thats not what this haring was about. What happened to hiring the right people for the right job? Force minorities into jobs they don't belong in because of their ethnicity... If they want a job and apply for it they should have to beat out everyone else based on the qualifications.
Chastising the company over their leadership roles because of race is pretty ridiculous. (unless there is evidence of racism in their hiring process) Who's to say someone from a minority even applied for these positions or even wanted them?
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,869
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.

So you are saying do nothing about it.

I say it was wrong then, and wrong now. So do something about it.
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,290
Great! Turning it on for a bit. Wish I had time to watch more the proceedings

So, it basically came down to "you say we own our data and have control of it. But once it's been analyzed, we can't claw it back" Shoulda seen Zucks face, it was priceless.
So, something I've learned through watching this today is that FB doesn't sell your data or provide it to third party at all. That is literally all the user and what apps they choose to use. FB simply analyzes your data, and uses it for targeted advertising inside FB.
I actually have zero issues with this so long as the data is kept secure. It was always my understanding that FB sold the analyzed data to advertisers, etc..
 

LigTasm

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
5,163
So.... since he isn't under oath and more importantly paid everyone in the room, what exactly is the point of this? Just a show for us plebs to believe something is happening?
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,290
So.... since he isn't under oath and more importantly paid everyone in the room, what exactly is the point of this? Just a show for us plebs to believe something is happening?

Seems to be more about "what are you gonna do to make sure the Cambridge thing doesn't happen again" and other external information sharing/gathering
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2018
Messages
1
I am just over here dying at the fact that the fat white piece of shit from North Carolina (my state) asking some questions is named Mr. Butterfield
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,112
So someone give me the Cliff notes version of why this is happening? Websites collecting data is nothing new, websites selling said data to anyone who will buy it is nothing new, the government lecturing an individual about "spying" on them without their knowledge is fucking hilarious though.
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,290
So someone give me the Cliff notes version of why this is happening? Websites collecting data is nothing new, websites selling said data to anyone who will buy it is nothing new, the government lecturing an individual about "spying" on them without their knowledge is fucking hilarious though.


They believe that the Cambridge thing lead to meddling indirectly with the election with targeted advertising, etc...
 

krotch

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
4,509
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.

Facebook collects the data, but they don't sell it. They sell access to information about the data they collected, but not the data itself. As in, they aren't going to give you everyone's data, but they might provide other information about those on their service.

Like, 10% of our user base like surfing. 20% of our user base like camping. So on, so forth. They don't know who specifically likes either of those things, but they know that if they were to advertise on the platform, they could hit X amount of users with their advertising.

Course, this is all assumption, as I have no idea WTF Facebook does with all the data.
 

Drakeniir

Weaksauce
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
103
Still trying to find out why the stock goes up right after he starts talking with his stupid mouth. :/
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,290
Facebook collects the data, but they don't sell it. They sell access to information about the data they collected, but not the data itself. As in, they aren't going to give you everyone's data, but they might provide other information about those on their service.

Like, 10% of our user base like surfing. 20% of our user base like camping. So on, so forth. They don't know who specifically likes either of those things, but they know that if they were to advertise on the platform, they could hit X amount of users with their advertising.

Course, this is all assumption, as I have no idea WTF Facebook does with all the data.


The Zuck addressed this directly today.
 

SomeoneElse

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,940
I love how there are some reps that have their own agenda when asking questions that have nothing to do with this hearing.....:confused::facepalm:
 
  • Like
Reactions: blkt
like this

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
Facebook collects the data, but they don't sell it. They sell access to information about the data they collected, but not the data itself. As in, they aren't going to give you everyone's data, but they might provide other information about those on their service.

This is where you are splitting hairs, giving access to information is giving them that information. If you are selling your platform to a third party, they are paying an entry fee to use your platform, and as part of that you agree to give them access to certain information, you are still selling that information. You are selling that access. Once they have access to that information, they have the information. This is the whole problem with Zucker'Borg's statements and why he waffled on the issue. He came out and admitted they messed up and sold information to CA. But CA is not the only one that had that kind of access, so they weren't the only ones that FB messed up with, just the only one's they are admitting to specifically right now.

Like, 10% of our user base like surfing. 20% of our user base like camping. So on, so forth. They don't know who specifically likes either of those things, but they know that if they were to advertise on the platform, they could hit X amount of users with their advertising.

Course, this is all assumption, as I have no idea WTF Facebook does with all the data.

That is incorrect. If that is what FB was doing, there would have been no way for CA to do what they did. It also would preclude a lot of apps for working the way they do. And it would also preclude targeted ads for working they way they do.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,112
She seemed pretty rude, kept interrupting the Zuck. I would of thrown something at her if I was him.
That's par for the course for these "congressional hearings", they know the cameras are on them, so they decide to sound like a hard nosed attack dog going after their victim. Let me ask you 50 questions giving you zero time to answer, because I'm awesome!
 
  • Like
Reactions: blkt
like this

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
That's par for the course for these "congressional hearings", they know the cameras are on them, so they decide to sound like a hard nosed attack dog going after their victim. Let me ask you 50 questions giving you zero time to answer, because I'm awesome!

Actually I think it is more because there was a time limit for each person to ask questions. Also Zuckerberg kept waffling on answers or deflecting them and they wanted more committed answers. Note also they kept saying "for the record", which is asking him to answer the question after the hearing. Not all the answers necessarily have to be done in the hearing itself. Although certainly there probably is some grandstanding on certain issues or questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blkt
like this

Kaitian

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
4,870
Actually I think it is more because there was a time limit for each person to ask questions. Also Zuckerberg kept waffling on answers or deflecting them and they wanted more committed answers. Note also they kept saying "for the record", which is asking him to answer the question after the hearing. Not all the answers necessarily have to be done in the hearing itself. Although certainly there probably is some grandstanding on certain issues or questions.
Sort of. There is indeed a time limit for each senator or representative. However the answer from the party they're interviewing is counted on their allocated time. So you may have 5 minutes allocated to you but you can use that however you wish whether to give a lecture or ask questions. If you want answers, that is counted on your time too. The only way around that is to ask the chairman to ask for additional time.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
Sort of. There is indeed a time limit for each senator or representative. However the answer from the party they're interviewing is counted on their allocated time. So you may have 5 minutes allocated to you but you can use that however you wish whether to give a lecture or ask questions. If you want answers, that is counted on your time too. The only way around that is to ask the chairman to ask for additional time.

EDIT:

I see what you are saying. Refer back to my comments about "on the record". Zuckerberg will have time to answers some of those questions later. But yes, each member has a certain amount of time allocated to them including anything said by all parties involved. That is why you may see some rushing questions or interrupting answers, to make full use of their time.

EDIT: Just as an example see the following where Michael Beckerman answered questions "for the record" and they were placed on the page with the hearing.
 
Last edited:

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,290
This is where you are splitting hairs, giving access to information is giving them that information. If you are selling your platform to a third party, they are paying an entry fee to use your platform, and as part of that you agree to give them access to certain information, you are still selling that information. You are selling that access. Once they have access to that information, they have the information. This is the whole problem with Zucker'Borg's statements and why he waffled on the issue. He came out and admitted they messed up and sold information to CA. But CA is not the only one that had that kind of access, so they weren't the only ones that FB messed up with, just the only one's they are admitting to specifically right now.



That is incorrect. If that is what FB was doing, there would have been no way for CA to do what they did. It also would preclude a lot of apps for working the way they do. And it would also preclude targeted ads for working they way they do
.


Seems you aren't watching the stream. They explained EXACTLY how CA got that data. It had everything to do with a third party Facebook app that had users agree to data collection on their feeds, and that data was then sold to CA.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
Seems you aren't watching the stream. They explained EXACTLY how CA got that data. It had everything to do with a third party Facebook app that had users agree to data collection on their feeds, and that data was then sold to CA.

I did watch the stream, did you? They even mentioned CA was not the only company that this happened with. They also mentioned that they are responsible for the data. Third party or not, FB is ultimately the ones that sold access to the data and that data was sent out.

Again, this is exactly the point of the hearing. About Facebook's responsibility for the data they collect, access to it, and what happens with it. Not only with cases like CA, but also with Facebook's own use of the data.
 
Top