Live - Zuckerberg Before Congress Pt 1

krotch

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
4,509
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 isn't splitting hairs. That's completely different. You're generating new data, based off the data that you gathered.

5 people on our platform like eating cheese, is a lot different than Joe Doe, Sally Bob, Randall Watson, John Smith, and Jane Doe like eating cheese. Here's the posts of them saying they like eating cheese.

They also didn't sell anything to CA. Facebook provided an API to their platform freely to developers. CA hired a guy that made an app to make use of that API and mined information from anyone who downloaded his app. Facebook sucks at securing shit, so that app was also able to grab data about the friends of those who downloaded the app. Nothing was sold.

So when Facebook found out about this, they told CA to delete the data, which of course they didn't do and they sold it off to whoever.


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.

What you're talking about is apps that are separate from Facebook. They simply use an API to be able to connect to Facebook and those apps need to be granted permission by the user to allow them to retrieve the data. This is a free API, as Facebook wants as many ppl as possible to use Facebook.

The problem is that Facebook allows them to grab data from friends and puts the onus on those people to change their privacy settings to disallow a friend's app to be able to access their data, simply cause their friends. They should, by default, disallow this. If the person installing the ad, gives permissions, that's one thing, but it should not be able to access data outside of that one person. It's just crappy Facebook security.

This is not how they generate money. They do not sell your data, but make money off advertising.

Well got further into the video and this is how Zuckerberg explains it.

"What we allow is for advertisers to tell us who they want to reach, and then we do the placement. So, if an advertiser comes to us and says, 'All right, I am a ski shop and I want to sell skis to women,' then we might have some sense, because people shared skiing-related content, or said they were interested in that, they shared whether they're a woman, and then we can show the ads to the right people without that data ever changing hands and going to the advertiser."

As I said, my guess, they probably give vague data to get advertisers to want to use the platform for their ads. Seems I'm fairly on the right track with what I've said before.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
That isn't splitting hairs. That's completely different. You're generating new data, based off the data that you gathered.

Want to say that again and not split hairs? Generating new data based off the data that you gathered. Come on now. Why are you such an apologist for FB? Even FB is taking some ownership for where they have screwed up on this. Much more than what you are saying here.
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,290
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.


I'm still watching the stream. I've been watching it since it started.

Facebook does not sell data. They are intermediaries between the target and the ad buyer. They do not share individual data. Buyer says "hey, I sell skis, can you help?" And Facebook says "yeah, here are our demographics, this many users at this age group, with this estimsted income, location, etc..." then the buyer says "I want this and this and this" and Facebook targets those users. They don't hand a pile of user data to the ad buyer.

The information that CA obtained through the app developed by that Alex guy was not furnished by Facebook. Idiot users installed a third party FB app, allowed profile collecting, and then that Alex guy sold that information to CA.
Yes, other apps do the same things. But those are third party apps and they collect that information for "social" experiences. Facebook did not provide to that data, individual users provided that data, outside of their standard privacy settings. There was no breach, selling, giving, whatever, of data by Facebook to CA or that Alex dude. It was 100% user submitted.
I just don't understand why this is so hard to understand?
 
Last edited:

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,290
That isn't splitting hairs. That's completely different. You're generating new data, based off the data that you gathered.

5 people on our platform like eating cheese, is a lot different than Joe Doe, Sally Bob, Randall Watson, John Smith, and Jane Doe like eating cheese. Here's the posts of them saying they like eating cheese.

They also didn't sell anything to CA. Facebook provided an API to their platform freely to developers. CA hired a guy that made an app to make use of that API and mined information from anyone who downloaded his app. Facebook sucks at securing shit, so that app was also able to grab data about the friends of those who downloaded the app. Nothing was sold.

So when Facebook found out about this, they told CA to delete the data, which of course they didn't do and they sold it off to whoever.




What you're talking about is apps that are separate from Facebook. They simply use an API to be able to connect to Facebook and those apps need to be granted permission by the user to allow them to retrieve the data. This is a free API, as Facebook wants as many ppl as possible to use Facebook.

The problem is that Facebook allows them to grab data from friends and puts the onus on those people to change their privacy settings to disallow a friend's app to be able to access their data, simply cause their friends. They should, by default, disallow this. If the person installing the ad, gives permissions, that's one thing, but it should not be able to access data outside of that one person. It's just crappy Facebook security.

This is not how they generate money. They do not sell your data, but make money off advertising.

Well got further into the video and this is how Zuckerberg explains it.



As I said, my guess, they probably give vague data to get advertisers to want to use the platform for their ads. Seems I'm fairly on the right track with what I've said before.


It was mentioned earlier today that friend information sharing no longer is allowed in the API, which to me is pretty good. That's a great steps in the right direction.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
I'm still watching the stream. I've been watching it since it started.

Facebook does not sell data. They are intermediaries between the target and the ad buyer. They do not share individual data. Buyer says "hey, I sell skis, can you help?" And Facebook says "yeah, here are our demographics, this many users at this age group, with this estimsted income, location, etc..." then the buyer says "I want this and this and this" and Facebook targets those users. They don't hand a pile of user data to the ad buyer.

That actually isn't specifically true. That is the way he is directing he answers, but that is not the only way they deal with data. And if you listen to all of his answers to various questions you will see him waiver sometimes from that. Case in point my first comment about how he admitted that FB was responsible for the sale of data to CA. Also if you paid attention to various games and ads on FB, you would know that what you said above cannot be the only way FB deals with the data it allows third parties to use.

The information that CA obtained through the app developed by that Alex guy was not furnished by Facebook. Idiot users installed a third party FB app, allowed profile collecting, and then that Alex guy sold that information to CA.
Yes, other apps do the same things. But those are third party apps and they collect that information for "social" experiences. Facebook did not provide that data, individual users provided that data. There was no breach, selling, giving, whatever, of data by Facebook to CA or that Alex dude. It was 100% user submitted.
I just don't understand why this is so hard to understand?

So basically users allowed access for a third party app to collect data....from FB. So FB has the data, the data is being collected from FB by a third party, that FB allows to connect to their platform.... But yeah, FB has nothing to do with it? Again...come on man.
 

krotch

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
4,509
Want to say that again and not split hairs? Generating new data based off the data that you gathered. Come on now. Why are you such an apologist for FB? Even FB is taking some ownership for where they have screwed up on this. Much more than what you are saying here.

I didn't say Facebook didn't screw up with their API. They massively screwed up and they are paying for it right now, but what you are stating is completely incorrect. It's also not splitting hairs.

If I provide you a bar graph that says 5% Facebook users like yellow, 10% like blue, 50% like red, 35% like green. Exactly what specific information did you get out of that? Nothing. It's vastly different between getting that type of information, than getting specific information about a person's name, their posts, their friends, their email address, their age, etc.

It was mentioned earlier today that friend information sharing no longer is allowed in the API, which to me is pretty good. That's a great steps in the right direction.

That's good, I didn't know if they got rid of that or not. All I know is I change my privacy settings any time Facebook says they made changes. Nothing on Facebook I have is important at all, but it always pays to be cautious.
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,290
That actually isn't specifically true. That is the way he is directing he answers, but that is not the only way they deal with data. And if you listen to all of his answers to various questions you will see him waiver sometimes from that. Case in point my first comment about how he admitted that FB was responsible for the sale of data to CA. Also if you paid attention to various games and ads on FB, you would know that what you said above cannot be the only way FB deals with the data it allows third parties to use.



So basically users allowed access for a third party app to collect data....from FB. So FB has the data, the data is being collected from FB by a third party, that FB allows to connect to their platform.... But yeah, FB has nothing to do with it? Again...come on man.


No. The API does not allow access go to collected and analyzed data. It allows access to the information on your wall and profile. Again, it does not allow access to your advertising profile that FB has, and that is not shown to any third party
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
I didn't say Facebook didn't screw up with their API. They massively screwed up and they are paying for it right now, but what you are stating is completely incorrect. It's also not splitting hairs.

If I provide you a bar graph that says 5% Facebook users like yellow, 10% like blue, 50% like red, 35% like green. Exactly what specific information did you get out of that? Nothing. It's vastly different between getting that type of information, than getting specific information about a person's name, their posts, their friends, their email address, their age, etc.

Again, if you believe that is all they do, but even FB is not saying that is all they do. They are insinuating that is what they do and that they do not specifically sell data. But again, if you listen to other comments from them, they are admitting to selling data as well. So, again, which is it? And is that really all they are doing with the data? We know that isn't all they do with the data, but they are not forthcoming about it.

But really believe what you want. If you think he is telling the truth at this hearing, for which he was not sworn in, then go ahead and believe it. It isn't like FB has a track record of lying over and over and over again to its users... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

No. The API does not allow access go to collected and analyzed data. It allows access to the information on your wall and profile. Again, it does not allow access to your advertising profile that FB has, and that is not shown to any third party

Except that it actually did. FB admitted as much. FB had to do an emergency patch. All this was also mentioned in the hearing that supposedly you think I am not listening to....
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,290
Again, if you believe that is all they do, but even FB is not saying that is all they do. They are insinuating that is what they do and that they do not specifically sell data. But again, if you listen to other comments from them, they are admitting to selling data as well. So, again, which is it? And is that really all they are doing with the data? We know that isn't all they do with the data, but they are not forthcoming about it.

But really believe what you want. If you think he is telling the truth at this hearing, for which he was not sworn in, then go ahead and believe it. It isn't like FB has a track record of lying over and over and over again to its users... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



Except that it actually did. FB admitted as much. FB had to do an emergency patch. All this was also mentioned in the hearing that supposedly you think I am not listening to....


Oh, an emergency patch? So it was a flaw and therefore unintentional.

Got it.

Far as I remember, the only "patch" that I can recall being mentioned had to do with one person being able to share some information about their friends. And that part was intentional for the "social experience", and had since been removed.
But again, this does not include your analyzed targeted internal profile.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
Oh, an emergency patch? So it was a flaw and therefore unintentional.

Got it.

Yes...something FB was directly responsible for, was allowing to happen, knew it existed for awhile before they patched it and then only patched it when they were taken to task over it. Got it?

Far as I remember, the only "patch" that I can recall being mentioned had to do with one person being able to share some information about their friends. And that part was intentional for the "social experience", and had since been removed.
But again, this does not include your analyzed targeted internal profile.

That wasn't the only one, in fact they mentioned a number of things FB has patched over the years and even timelines of when they happened. Did you even watch any of the hearing?
 

CaptNumbNutz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
22,823
So basically users allowed access for a third party app to collect data....from FB. So FB has the data, the data is being collected from FB by a third party, that FB allows to connect to their platform.... But yeah, FB has nothing to do with it? Again...come on man.
I'm not going to speculate if they intentionally did or did not have any more to do with it. However, Zuck did confirm in yesterday's hearing the company in question was not immediately banned when they found out about them in 2015. Complete ineptitude or FB was in on it, we can't be sure until hard evidence is found. It is definitely a huge red flag and they do need to be held accountable for it.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
I'm not going to speculate if they intentionally did or did not have any more to do with it. However, Zuck did confirm in yesterday's hearing the company in question was not immediately banned when they found out about them in 2015. Complete ineptitude or FB was in on it, we can't be sure until hard evidence is found. It is definitely a huge red flag and they do need to be held accountable for it.

It went back further than even 2015, they knew about problems with their API back in 2013 and didn't do anything about it then...
 

NoOther

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

And yet you have said many things that are contradictory to what was actually said in the stream. You also seem to lack knowledge about things that were in the stream. Listening is fundamental after all...
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,290
I'm not going to speculate if they intentionally did or did not have any more to do with it. However, Zuck did confirm in yesterday's hearing the company in question was not immediately banned when they found out about them in 2015. Complete ineptitude or FB was in on it, we can't be sure until hard evidence is found. It is definitely a huge red flag and they do need to be held accountable for it.


Zuck just stated that they did ban the dev once they found out he sold that data to CA. I guess the selling of that data was a BOC
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,290
And yet you have said many things that are contradictory to what was actually said in the stream. You also seem to lack knowledge about things that were in the stream. Listening is fundamental after all...


I think it has more to do with you drawing conclusions of your own opinion and selective hearing versus paying attention and listening to the facts as presented in today's testimony. After all, you're the only one in this thread with your position.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
I think it has more to do with you drawing conclusions of your own opinion and selective hearing versus paying attention and listening to the facts as presented in today's testimony. After all, you're the only one in this thread with your position.

What conclusions? Based on what Zuckerberg said between yesterday and today? Based on reports that FB put out? Based on numerous articles and information written about these cases? Which of these are selective? You didn't even know about the problems of the API going back to 2013. You didn't even know that FB knew, even though they said so in the hearing. You didn't know about them saying they were responsible for the sale of the data in the hearing even though Zuckerberg himself said it. So please, to which things do I have selective hearing?
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,290
What conclusions? Based on what Zuckerberg said between yesterday and today? Based on reports that FB put out? Based on numerous articles and information written about these cases? Which of these are selective? You didn't even know about the problems of the API going back to 2013. You didn't even know that FB knew, even though they said so in the hearing. You didn't know about them saying they were responsible for the sale of the data in the hearing even though Zuckerberg himself said it. So please, to which things do I have selective hearing?

*sigh*

beating.jpg
 

NoOther

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

Right...great response when you are caught trying to reprimand someone for not watching something that you say you are watching when you get called to task for things that were actually said in the hearing. Unless you are referring to beating the dead horse that you don't know what you are talking about and aren't paying attention to the hearing and what is being said...
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
I bet you're a real peach to work with.

I am actually, I get asked to work on a lot of projects specifically because I work well with people, customers, and management. I listen to what everyone says, ascertain what the root problems are, I address them without having to use BS, and fix them.

I am sure you can get there one day though. :ROFLMAO:
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
14,722
Yay.. The end of the mostly clueless people asking questions they cannot even begin to understand themselves has come to an end for now.
 

fuzzylogik

Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
653
So you are saying do nothing about it.

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

For some reason it appears that words are being added to my post(s)?

The main point of my original post was to give additional history/information and facts on the subject without (as much as possible) interjecting my thoughts on the subject.

Now following up - personally I feel that for the most part this is all much ado about nothing. Both Facebook and the US Government did absolutely nothing back then even though they knew all about it. It was all over the news. They were even praised for it back then as being a very smart use of technology. I was amazed. Nobody had any problems with this? And again, it also appears that nobody "broke rules" about anything in the past or present since they were all abiding by Facebooks rules at the time (Or they all somehow decided that it was okay and just turned a blind eye and suddenly decided not to)? I'm amazed again at the sudden reversal and...somehow forgetting the recent past?

TOS, "Shrink Wrap Agreements" etc. have been a highly debated topic for at least the past 20+ years and currently we still don't have a great solution. We do though, thankfully have laws on paper protecting personal information (HIPPA, FERPA etc.). There even has been some improvements as to what is even enforceable in TOS agreements etc.

- BUT, and this is a big one: there isn't anything stopping ANYBODY from actively choosing/volunteering/consenting to send that very same personal information to other people.

And that's really where I think the problem lies (And that's even touched on a bit in the second video the analogy as to who owns information - i.e., talking with a friend on the street etc.) - What does that exactly mean? My relationships are certainly my own business. if you accept a TOS that shares your information and allows a group to see your friends... is that different from accepting a new App on your phone that shares your contact information (which, by the way, is what the Clinton campaign did for the 2016 election. Installed an App that gathered the information from your phone - including all your contacts. which typically include all your friends/family/co-workers. And did practically the same thing)? So... what's allowable under the law? If it is - why is it. And if not, why aren't they being enforced? Seems like an easy fix would have been to ask additional consent from those "friends" - (except by that point - they already know who they are and can use that information in and of itself)?

Anyways - this issue has the potential to pose significant and much bigger implications/unintended consequences - Should anybody else be able to tell me what I can and can't tell others about myself (even with consent)?
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
Anyways - this issue has the potential to pose significant and much bigger implications/unintended consequences - Should anybody else be able to tell me what I can and can't tell others about myself (even with consent)?

I think one solution as they mentioned several times in the hearings is to do an opt-in. Apparently that is what Europe is already requiring from FB anyway. It was funny the way Zuckerberg kept deflecting when asked if he would do the same for the US, obviously without seeing what the US wants to do exactly may change his opinion.

Additionally, you should have to opt-in for each app and they should let you itemize what you allow them to collect, not just wrap it all up in the same approval like is currently done.

The truth is, if a company is collecting data, then someone is going to be able to get that data. Just as someone can get to the data on your own devices.

The specific problem in this case though is when a company knows there is an issue and does nothing to correct it, or takes too long to correct it. And how to proceed from here to make sure it doesn't happen again, not just with FB, but with other companies that collect data as well.
 

jbc029

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2013
Messages
484
I got up at 6AM and ate an egg salad sandwich, 2 pints of Rocky Road ice cream and a microwave burrito so that I could stream myself passing gas through Zuckerberg's entire testimony, but after five minutes I just didn't care.

Dad wanted a ride to another town to pick up some stuff from Home Depot, and we were about 10 minutes outside of the city limits when he asked, "What the hell did you eat this morning?" And I told him, "Well, Mark Zuckerberg was testifying before congress today."


P.S. I decided to push around one of those noisy lumber carts while I was crop dusting in the Garden Center. Dad's pushing a shopping cart with a few things in it and I'm following with an empty lumber cart, and he's asking me, "What are you doing with that thing?" and I said, "Mostly trying to make people think it's you."

:LOL:
 

staknhalo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
1,693
For anyone who didn't watch yesterday, let me summarize for you:

Mark Zuckerberg said:
Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator Senator
 
Last edited:

PestXs

n00b
Joined
Jun 4, 2001
Messages
25
She seemed pretty rude, kept interrupting the Zuck. I would of thrown something at her if I was him.

I most likely know who gave Castor her questions, but Castor herself is too stupid to understand the issues and continue the line of questioning successfully.

The problem being almost every website now has facebook Like/share buttons on it, which do more than Like and share. The javascript for the like/share buttons also track and tell Facebook what sites/URLs a person/browser has visited. This data(of which sites are visited) is collected WITHOUT a facebook account or explicit consent(clicking a like button) and is more valuable than what a person does "like" on facebook.com directly. NoScript and Ublock exist to prevent website's such as Facebook from tracking which websites a person/browser visits(in addition to blocking advertisements).

P.S. if you're blocking advertisements and external javascript, it's probably also blocking the HardOCP advertisements. Consider donating to HardOCP directly at https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=6668843
 

bugleyman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
1,227
...and yet, no matter how much Zuck gets grilled, he'll still be a billionaire when it is all over.
 

-PK-

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
1,798
What conclusions? Based on what Zuckerberg said between yesterday and today? Based on reports that FB put out? Based on numerous articles and information written about these cases? Which of these are selective? You didn't even know about the problems of the API going back to 2013. You didn't even know that FB knew, even though they said so in the hearing. You didn't know about them saying they were responsible for the sale of the data in the hearing even though Zuckerberg himself said it. So please, to which things do I have selective hearing?
Facebook never sells data. You misunderstood what he was going to say before he was cut off, that Facebook and the industry are responsible for protecting user's data privacy.

Why was he sitting on that pillow thing? Just for comfort or did he need it for the height?
It was the wrong kind of chair, one of those low sitting study lounge chairs. His feet were square on the floor with the cushion. Today they had a normal chair.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
Facebook never sells data. You misunderstood what he was going to say before he was cut off, that Facebook and the industry are responsible for protecting user's data privacy.

No, I didn't. He was not cut off when he was talking about that part. It was something he offered up himself to a question.

It was the wrong kind of chair, one of those low sitting study lounge chairs. His feet were square on the floor with the cushion. Today they had a normal chair.

Think about what you just said there his feet were square on the floor with the cushion. What does that mean? If you meant his knees were square to his shins, then you are actually incorrect. You can see in the broadcast that his knees were bent quite a bit. Also they could have asked for a different chair. The cushion was definitely there to help keep him projected above the table. It also was probably used for more comfort since it was going to be a long hearing.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
2,153
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're still trying to figure out who to blame for Trump getting elected. This week it's because of Facebook's bad API.
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
No, I didn't. He was not cut off when he was talking about that part. It was something he offered up himself to a question.



Think about what you just said there his feet were square on the floor with the cushion. What does that mean? If you meant his knees were square to his shins, then you are actually incorrect. You can see in the broadcast that his knees were bent quite a bit. Also they could have asked for a different chair. The cushion was definitely there to help keep him projected above the table. It also was probably used for more comfort since it was going to be a long hearing.


Or it was a distraction.... There were more stupid posts/jokes/memes about that cushion than on any of the actual issues being discussed...... Once again our "SQUIRREL!!" population gets distracted by the meaningless shit.
 

lostin3d

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
2,043
I just saw another news clip tonight with MZ getting grilled about a security firm notifying them in 2013 and 2015 about this security 'flaw' and they did nothing until last weeks patch. All he would do is not acknowledge and refer to a couple to three weeks ago news blip. I swear, MZ is starting to feel more slimey than a used car salesmen dropped into a tank of oil and then swathed in butter. As idiotic as I've felt about the majority of FB users, it's getting real hard for me not to have misgivings about this guy as I watch different people call him on the spot with hard facts and he just dances away. I truly feel privacy and election meddling are the least of our concerns, lord only knows what else they've been up to and if we'll ever truly know about it.
 
Top