I think it was unlikely he'd have gone Republican, and Democrats would have been wary about going with a billionaire in 45's wake. He was probably a non-starter already.
I don’t think he was ever running for President. I think he was realizing that Facebook CEO is a position of more political influence than perhaps even the US President.
You cannot keep saying you are neutral when you clearly get outraged when one side does something you let the other side do. Particularly when you shouldn't of let anybody do it in the first place.
Yeah, the lid was blown wide open and if Facebook has to answer to why it turned a blind eye to this Cambridge Analytica scandal they should also have to answer to how their platform was used by the Democrats in 2008 and 2012.
It's well known that the Obama campaign used big data to gain an advantage in those elections. It's looking like they were just doing the same thing with Facebook's data too.
Zuck isn't absent. He's just following the tried and true method of letting enough time pass by so that the public loses interest and moves on to the next big thing. Three months from now this will all be forgotten and it's back to business as usual.
The allegations against Facebook are that for a period of several years they turned a blind eye to rampant Developer abuse of their API, allowing Political organizations (and others) to download massive amounts of Facebook user data.
Facebook also continuously marginalized their Chief Security Officer who routinely complained about the API loopholes, were caught informing employees of a "don't ask don't know therefore no liability" quasi-official policy towards the widespread abuse (don't rock the advertising/business boat), and eventually reduced the CSO's staff from 120 to 3 and role to what appears to be "tweeting pre-approved pro-Facebook messages".
The FTC is now investigating if Facebook has violated it's 2011 FTC privacy mandate, something which carries fines in the millions per event range I believe (i.e. trillions of USD in fines for this size of privacy mandate failure)
Cambridge analytica is an investment of Robert Mercer. Mercer also donates to the Trump campaign. Steve Bannon headed the CA operation to collect user data from social media for the sole purpose of "gaming" the electorate system (ALL confirmed by the Canadian CA whistleblower). Kushner hired CA to work for the Trump campaign. CA admitted (on tape) they broke election laws and actively obstruct justice by not keeping evidence (paper trail). They also admitted they ran the "entire digital campaign" for Trump Campaign. Board of CA quickly suspends CEO as of today.
Mark currently getting away as an accomplice to the murder of our democracy.
Companies give the silent treatment all the time but add on how terrible Zuckerberg is at public relations and even I really have trouble blaming Facebook for keeping him stashed away right now.
Personally, I think he is doing the right thing. The more fb communicates the more the press is going after them. At this pt, fb should just stop communicating as that will give media less fodder to go after since they tend to dig into smaller details anyways to get more views.
A good counter example is Twitter which had equal if not more exposure on Russian ads but they have kept mum. And no one is going after them.
> Personally, I think he is doing the right thing.
Right for who?
> fb should just stop communicating as that will give media less fodder
Oh I see. Right for Facebook's public image. Wrong for their customers which have a right to know what the hell Facebook has been doing with their data.
There are two ways to weather a crisis: get out in front of it or keep quiet and hope people move on.
The problem in this case is that FB represents a direct threat to the media businesses, and they are incentivized to drag out the issue as long as necessary
[+] [-] Firebrand|8 years ago|reply
Now what?
[+] [-] delecti|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calvinbhai|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jayess|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zitterbewegung|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ggg9990|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rjromero|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] protomyth|8 years ago|reply
You cannot keep saying you are neutral when you clearly get outraged when one side does something you let the other side do. Particularly when you shouldn't of let anybody do it in the first place.
[+] [-] dglass|8 years ago|reply
It's well known that the Obama campaign used big data to gain an advantage in those elections. It's looking like they were just doing the same thing with Facebook's data too.
[+] [-] bbctol|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sigi45|8 years ago|reply
He got lucky in life, there is not much at how he became what he is by having any special character or much of experience.
[+] [-] jrs235|8 years ago|reply
I highly recommend Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers.
[+] [-] jrs235|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bitmapbrother|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hedora|8 years ago|reply
(I actually agree with your point, but think it is wishful thinking on FB’s part)
[+] [-] RugnirViking|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] criley2|8 years ago|reply
Facebook also continuously marginalized their Chief Security Officer who routinely complained about the API loopholes, were caught informing employees of a "don't ask don't know therefore no liability" quasi-official policy towards the widespread abuse (don't rock the advertising/business boat), and eventually reduced the CSO's staff from 120 to 3 and role to what appears to be "tweeting pre-approved pro-Facebook messages".
The FTC is now investigating if Facebook has violated it's 2011 FTC privacy mandate, something which carries fines in the millions per event range I believe (i.e. trillions of USD in fines for this size of privacy mandate failure)
[+] [-] decacorn|8 years ago|reply
Mark currently getting away as an accomplice to the murder of our democracy.
[+] [-] tomcooks|8 years ago|reply
/s
[+] [-] chapill|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] frgtpsswrdlame|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilamont|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] badcede|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] product50|8 years ago|reply
A good counter example is Twitter which had equal if not more exposure on Russian ads but they have kept mum. And no one is going after them.
[+] [-] 9889095r3jh|8 years ago|reply
Right for who?
> fb should just stop communicating as that will give media less fodder
Oh I see. Right for Facebook's public image. Wrong for their customers which have a right to know what the hell Facebook has been doing with their data.
[+] [-] TAForObvReasons|8 years ago|reply
The problem in this case is that FB represents a direct threat to the media businesses, and they are incentivized to drag out the issue as long as necessary