I was struck that on the surface it looked quite adversarial. Senators were trying to ask fairly pointed questions (despite any technical ignorance). But underneath the surface, the two parties here have fairly well aligned goals -- less freedom on the Internet. The senators want to show that they're doing something, and Facebook welcomes regulation in order to suffocate would-be competitors with it. I'm sure they're going to collaborate to find something that works well for both of their interests. We're witnessing the death of the free internet. It was a nice experiment while it lasted.
it was a sham because asking hard questions would require them to admit FB being an important asset for US own intelligence operations.
If they drill too deep they'd need to face very uncomfortable questions about other platforms too, e.g Palantir (Thiel was right there lurking ;)). Facebook is the Internet in many countries (making them less resilient and even more prone to meddling than the US). And so looking at it from the IC perspective FB is too big to fail:
- Remember how confident in May 2016 Thiel was of a Trump presidency and when he openly started endorsing Trump? Was he operating with more knowledge than available to the general public: http://fortune.com/2016/05/10/peter-thiel-trump-delegate/
On an unrelated note: I always wonder how people nowadays identify the Internet with WWW. There are so many ways to use the Internet in a way not even remotely related to the current power struggles between greedy businesses and duped users, with incompetent governments meddling in from time to time.
I don't really understand what the big deal is here. All this data was given to facebook. Ads are inherently propaganda, how is the use of this data any different? If I decide in my terms of service that i can use your data however i want, including mining your messages and selling it to an evil dictator, i should be able to do that. If you agree, you are free to use my plateform, if not, thats fine too, you can't. me, and a group of people whom i've paid have developed this app, how can you restrict my right to do as i please with everything that comes out of it? If i want to shut down facebook tomorrow, i can. If it's against what is in my terms of service, sue the living shit out of me, and force me to update my terms to reflect reality or delete the app.
>Facebook welcomes regulation in order to suffocate would-be competitors with it
Sounds like a libertarian conspiracy theory to me, especially when we still don't know what these hypothetical regulations would look like. For instance if they make it easier to access your data, download and delete it they might somewhat weaken the lock-in effect of Facebook and level the playing field somewhat.
Beyond that and even if they make it slightly harder to build a social network in the future it doesn't mean that a reasonable amount of regulation is not worthwhile. If you want to start a bridge-building company you'll have to abide by a massive amount of rules, yet I'm not really sure I want to let the "completely free market" decide what a safe bridge looks like.
Measures to protect users' data and privacy will not strictly kill a "free" internet -- there are lots of reasonable caveats such as number of active users, total revenue, number of employees that would allow a small business to compete.
>and Facebook welcomes regulation in order to suffocate would-be competitors with it.
What??? I watched most of it, and while Zuckerberg agreed that legislation in some areas are needed, he was quite clear that most times that he does not think legislation is the answer. He said that they would internally implement things.
Multiple senators kept trying to get direct yes/no if he would support such regulation and he would say "I look forward to my team discussing that with you" when they wanted hard "yes" that he would champion regulation.
What counts as a free internet? Can an internet which is monitored and which the governments in power have ability to enforce penalties of what they consider misuse ever be considered free? How does one decide what material can be outlawed while still maintaining a free internet?
The more you're free to amble around the Web 'liking' things the more data Facebook can accumulate and the more lucrative you become. Why would they want to restrict that?
As for stifling competitors, Facebook actually benefit from a free-for-all Internet because they can watch trends and identify what needs to be done to capture each successive generation of users, slowly folding them into the big Facebook family.
I don't like the company but I don't think they want to lock the Internet down . I reckon they know that will just lead to something really disruptive and destructive that they won't see coming, like some app that spreads by sideloading.
Just the next first step off the current plateau onto a slope of improvement. FB is garbage pork barrel software anyway. Something cooler is coming along right around the corner. The design space is wide open it's just about who can grab more users. FB UX has never really changed much in ten years and old people use it. Need I say more?
The article points out that the extremely short time limit for each senator's questions made following up on anything almost impossible, but their overall poor understanding of the topic was just as significant.
It was obvious that, for a lot of the senators, the questions had been supplied to them and they didn't really understand what they were asking beyond a superficial level. They'd start out with a pretty solid question or two, but then be completely unable to follow up. Quite a few of them ended up wasting almost their whole time getting sidetracked by unimportant misunderstandings.
They should have had subject matter experts asking the questions. Instead there were people had no idea what they were talking about, wasting time on shout-outs to their sons/nephews or whomever (I was only able to follow it for a minute).
The CEO needed to be under oath so that lying would carry consequences, and they needed someone who could cut through the BS of how some of the answers were worded.
We need more programmers, engineers, etc running for office.
Maybe I'm too cynical about politics, but it appears to me that the point of these hearings is not to solve or investigate anything, it's to generate soundbites that voters or potential future voters would like. It's not even that important what the reply is, as long as the politician asks the hard question and demonstrates his concern, and if it makes the news & press, that's victory for them.
Note how many of the senators who voted to expand surveillance programs and the NSA became suddenly very concerned for privacy. They just wanted to try and dunk on him and get in a sound bite.
What I find particularly annoying in this kind of hearing is the condescending tone of the politicians. They are eager to put the blame on someone else when they are ultimately the ones who vote the laws.
Yeah, that's pretty much the entire purpose of Senate and Congressional hearings and always has been. When those groups want to get something done they do it behind closed doors.
This is so true. I was watching a Congressional hearing with the head of the SEC and FCTC about Cryptocurrencies about 2 months ago and I clearly remember Elizabeth Warren asking a completely unrelated, derailing question. I remember thinking "What the hell is she doing?" and then "I bet that you're going to find some Youtube clip: 'Elizabeth Warren totally GRILLS head of SEC!'"
These are the same elected officials that approved ISPs selling usage data? The same officials that were silent when Snowden released what he had? Etc.
Do I trust MZ and FB? Yes, as much as I trust Uncle Sam. Hint: Not much. The sham is on us. Again.
+1. Zuckerberg should have pointed out exactly who voted for the renewal of the FISA surveillance program in Jan. "Look, if an American citizen is angry enough and chooses to never share any more data with Facebook, s/he has that right and the ability. With the NSA/CIA/FBI/TSA/Homeland Security/traffic cameras/license plate readers/stingrays, there is no opt-out. Period."
Mark is more like an Emperor come to visit affiliated crowns than a servant being questioned by his masters.
Maybe the Senate’s deference in part is motivated by their belief he may run and win in a few years and they hope to win favor from a man they may end up working for.
Secondly perhaps it is motivated by them not wanting to appear too knowledgeable nor too much of a threat to Mark, to put him at ease, lest they otherwise provoke his wrath.
Third I think their attitude is certainly motivated by the awareness, from those in governments, just how powerful internet giants, particularly FB, are. I believe in no small ways have these
companies upended the conventional relationships of individuals,
and corporate individuals, to the state. They command vast resources, such as people and intelligence ( and automated processes pertaining to them, i.e, algorithms or bureaucracy, pick your favorite term ), traditionally the purview only of state entities.
I’m quite sure that many in government consider these companies are direct threats to the future of their model of governance. But they also feel they must handle them very delicately. Because they do not want to risk a premature confrontation they are unprepared for.
But if any person alive today was going to mount some sort of the future coup against conventional government, spearheaded by the new tech elite, then Mark is a perfect candidate. He is a student of history and demonstratedly strategically effective.
In this light, perhaps the biggest takeaway of a public questioning such as this is how much of a theatrical side show and possibly a distraction it is from the new reality these powerful groups find themselves contesting.
> Maybe the Senate’s deference in part is motivated by their belief he may run and win in a few years and they hope to win favor from a man they may end up working for.
The US Senate doesn't work for the President. They're part of independent branches of government.
If a person logs out of Facebook, and Facebook continues to track them anyway, then that’s clearly violating consent, and there was a meeting where someone said “we need a way to track people who explicitly do not want to be tracked” and everyone in the room nodded.
Facebook even tracks people who aren't Facebook members. It can build profiles on people who aren't members to learn more about people it can identify and suggest ads/products they might be interested in too.
I believe writers from the Guardian would sooner hand over control of the United States to the EU rather than try to understand why the US does things differently; but I think this question bears repeating: ethically, what has Facebook done wrong?
Understanding the full context of this hearing is vital to your opinion on the matter. I'm nobody with an outsider's perspective, but to me Facebook has made very few errors in bad faith. This whole uproar has been about Facebook's well known (or, what I once thought was well know, I guess) practices as a data and advertising platform. We know Facebook cooperates with governments around the world to produce data on its citizens. We know what can happen with our data if we _let_ it fall into the wrong hands.
I started using Facebook when I was 13 in 2007. (As a side note, I think Facebook should not be sharing data about minors to any parties.) I filled out a fair few questionnaires and I may have even participated in "Your digital life" somewhere along the line. At that time I started using Facebook it was providing an interface for establishing informed consent (basically their OAuth flow), to the extent at which it was reasonable for them (which to this day extends beyond the requirements of the law in the US as far as I know.) I consented to sharing my data with the 3rd party, which was essentially a license for that party to own that data. I knew that, and I did it anyway because I couldn't predict the ramifications of its collection and aggregation by a hostile party.
I think the people who are most upset about this whole controversy are the ones who blame it for Russia's Active Measures.
In my opinion, the solution isn't a GDPR-esque approach. I think we have to teach people why data is valuable and how it can be used against them. This is important for both creating an intellectual barrier to the efficacy of propaganda and so that people can make real, informed decisions about their privacy so that when they're asked if they want to share their friends' birthdates and phone numbers, they know what their answer should be.
I consented to sharing my data with the 3rd party, which
was essentially a license for that party to own that data.
Imagine you're not a facebook user. When Facebook sucks up your name and phone number and e-mail address out of your buddy's phonebook, along with all the messages and calls between you, have you consented?
What about when you get a 'shadow profile' based on tracking buttons and pixels on other websites. Have you consented?
How about if you've brought from example-retailer.com in the past and they upload your full contact and mailing details to Facebook to make an ad campaign that targets (or skips) existing customers?
When you don't participate in anything like quizzes on FB Platform, but your grandma does so FB hands your details over to the quiz company anyway as part of Grandma's list of friends, have you consented?
What about when you deliberately haven't given certain data to Facebook, and they buy it from a advertising data broker instead?
IMHO people who think consent is the only issue here don't fully understand the problems.
> I believe writers from the Guardian would sooner hand over control of the United States to the EU rather than try to understand why the US does things differently
"Zephyr Teachout is an American academic, political activist, and former political candidate."
> In my opinion, the solution isn't a GDPR-esque approach. I think we have to teach people why data is valuable and how it can be used against them.
No solution that involves teaching or educating users will work. It's simply not possible without some drastic measures such as a real change in school curriculum and waiting for the older generations to pass. It doesn't work with IT security, it will not work with privacy either.
Most of the people who use facebook are not technically proficient so they will not have your understanding of what they are giving up when they use FB. This was brought home to me when my sister called in a panic when the FB news broke.
Even for the technically proficient there were issues. For instance, FB changes the privacy policies without notifying anyone. When FB rolled out the friends of friends feature my son was in college. He continually rejected my friend requests saying "we have something better than friendship." Then one day I could see his entire feed. I debated if I should let him know - and finally I called him. He immediately disabled the friends of friends feature. In my opinion this was a data breach.
Two things were the final straw for me. The first was that friends behavior was releasing my data when my friends acted irresponsibly. The second was that FB was tracking data offline of FB.
Yes, the hearing was a sham, but not quite in the way the OP thinks. To quote Hannibal Lecter, in turn quoting Marcus Aurelius:
> Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?
What do senators do? Primarily, they get themselves elected. They see that Facebook might have a role in that. They're trying to figure out if it can help them, or help their opponents, or if they can turn it from one to the other. Secondarily, while there's so much negative sentiment about Facebook (I'll write about journalists' role and agenda in fanning those flames another time), they want to be seen as asking hard questions. They don't want to be asking hard questions until they know where the advantage to themselves might be, but they want to seem that way. Anything else is just window dressing.
Of course it was a sham. No one's interests are aligned to getting this solved.
Facebook want to get away with as minimal regulation as possible, and any regulation that does happen it wants to harm its incumbents.
Politicians want to get re-elected, and want regulation in so far as it harms the chances of anyone 'doing a Trump' and using social media to unseat their own Congressional seat. They're not that exercised about privacy otherwise they wouldn't have spent the last year arguing for a right to hack people's phones.
Users want to make the right noises / virtue signals to their friends about privacy but ultimately don't want to pay for Facebook.
'Researchers' want to make a name for themselves off the back of this issue and appear on TV but Oh My God don't ask me any questions about how this actually works or what an alternative looks like.
The media and publishers want the exposure and ad revenue that comes from running this story, but want to avoid anyone asking any difficult questions about them signing over their involvement in FB schemes such as Instant Articles or how they track their own users.
The process worked exactly as designed - it allowed everyone to have their pound of flesh while ensuring nothing actually gets done.
It does sound like it was a sham. However, what is really going to make a difference now that Facebook has critical mass is people voting with their feet. This doesn't just mean attempting to remove yourself from their system but also communicating broadly how the system actually works. Most of my non-tech friends still just see it as a way to keep up to date on what is happening in the world.
Zuckerberg: Yes, there are two options. First to deactivate because students and want to suspend and come back because they want to study for exam. Second option is users can totally delete all their data.
Where is the second option anyone from Facebook ? There is only an option to delete the account after you DIE, not an option to delete it when you are alive.
It was fun to watch Congress pretend like there's something to legislate here, and to watch Zuckerberg pretend like whatever legislation Facebook helps write might be a burden.
The openness to the idea of AI modulating discourse so that we don't ever have to feel uncomfortable was my favorite part.
I find it ridiculous that a company that runs a web-community should be held accountable for what it's users do, while weapons manufacturers are not. Why not just hold the people that breached their terms and conditions responsible like we do with guns?
Why was there no discussion about the price discrimination which occurred in the last election, and to be fair, probably also happened in previous elections? No other media company is allowed to do this. Does the Honest Ads bill even address this?
After the ban they also enabled forced pre-moderation on all my wall posts (everything I post to my wall gets marked with "We removed this post because it looks like spam and doesn't follow our"), so now I cant post anything at all. Do we need more proofs that Zuckerberg is a Putin's friend? Hello, Facebook! I'm a citizen of Russia who is just being critical of Russia and Putin. How much Russia pays Zuckerberg to censor dissent opinion and promote Russian puppets, like Donald Trump?
It seems as though everybody in the room has a very different agenda and even more different level of education on the subject. Some seem to be using it to grill Zuckerberg, some to setup discussion and some to air dirty laundry. It's a bit of a circus in there.
[+] [-] spacehome|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DyslexicAtheist|8 years ago|reply
If they drill too deep they'd need to face very uncomfortable questions about other platforms too, e.g Palantir (Thiel was right there lurking ;)). Facebook is the Internet in many countries (making them less resilient and even more prone to meddling than the US). And so looking at it from the IC perspective FB is too big to fail:
- Remember Palantir worked with CA on the Facebook data it acquired: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16690721
- Remember how confident in May 2016 Thiel was of a Trump presidency and when he openly started endorsing Trump? Was he operating with more knowledge than available to the general public: http://fortune.com/2016/05/10/peter-thiel-trump-delegate/
- His $1.25 million donation in October 2016 seems even more interesting now: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/technology/peter-thiel-do...
- Leaked Palantir Doc Reveals Uses, Specific Functions And Key Clients https://techcrunch.com/2015/01/11/leaked-palantir-doc-reveal...
- This is who runs PRISM: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/is-this-who-runs-prism
Oh and Palantir enables Immigration Agents to Access Information From the CIA: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13895827
Also more uncomfortable questions: https://twitter.com/RidT/status/983789426340921349
[+] [-] jacquesm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dvfjsdhgfv|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pas|8 years ago|reply
The regulations should be non-technology specific. Simply it should provide rules about customer/user data. Even if I use pigeons. (But not RFC 1149.)
[+] [-] deif|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lorenzorhoades|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simias|8 years ago|reply
Sounds like a libertarian conspiracy theory to me, especially when we still don't know what these hypothetical regulations would look like. For instance if they make it easier to access your data, download and delete it they might somewhat weaken the lock-in effect of Facebook and level the playing field somewhat.
Beyond that and even if they make it slightly harder to build a social network in the future it doesn't mean that a reasonable amount of regulation is not worthwhile. If you want to start a bridge-building company you'll have to abide by a massive amount of rules, yet I'm not really sure I want to let the "completely free market" decide what a safe bridge looks like.
[+] [-] davvolun|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrlala|8 years ago|reply
What??? I watched most of it, and while Zuckerberg agreed that legislation in some areas are needed, he was quite clear that most times that he does not think legislation is the answer. He said that they would internally implement things.
Multiple senators kept trying to get direct yes/no if he would support such regulation and he would say "I look forward to my team discussing that with you" when they wanted hard "yes" that he would champion regulation.
So I don't understand your post at all...
[+] [-] PurpleBoxDragon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drawkbox|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dingaling|8 years ago|reply
As for stifling competitors, Facebook actually benefit from a free-for-all Internet because they can watch trends and identify what needs to be done to capture each successive generation of users, slowly folding them into the big Facebook family.
I don't like the company but I don't think they want to lock the Internet down . I reckon they know that will just lead to something really disruptive and destructive that they won't see coming, like some app that spreads by sideloading.
[+] [-] 089723645897236|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Deimorz|8 years ago|reply
It was obvious that, for a lot of the senators, the questions had been supplied to them and they didn't really understand what they were asking beyond a superficial level. They'd start out with a pretty solid question or two, but then be completely unable to follow up. Quite a few of them ended up wasting almost their whole time getting sidetracked by unimportant misunderstandings.
[+] [-] Casseres|8 years ago|reply
The CEO needed to be under oath so that lying would carry consequences, and they needed someone who could cut through the BS of how some of the answers were worded.
We need more programmers, engineers, etc running for office.
[+] [-] kaitnieks|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] austenallred|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yodsanklai|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AnIdiotOnTheNet|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] droidist2|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trophycase|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lazugod|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chiefalchemist|8 years ago|reply
Do I trust MZ and FB? Yes, as much as I trust Uncle Sam. Hint: Not much. The sham is on us. Again.
[+] [-] listenallyall|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dosycorp|8 years ago|reply
Maybe the Senate’s deference in part is motivated by their belief he may run and win in a few years and they hope to win favor from a man they may end up working for.
Secondly perhaps it is motivated by them not wanting to appear too knowledgeable nor too much of a threat to Mark, to put him at ease, lest they otherwise provoke his wrath.
Third I think their attitude is certainly motivated by the awareness, from those in governments, just how powerful internet giants, particularly FB, are. I believe in no small ways have these companies upended the conventional relationships of individuals, and corporate individuals, to the state. They command vast resources, such as people and intelligence ( and automated processes pertaining to them, i.e, algorithms or bureaucracy, pick your favorite term ), traditionally the purview only of state entities.
I’m quite sure that many in government consider these companies are direct threats to the future of their model of governance. But they also feel they must handle them very delicately. Because they do not want to risk a premature confrontation they are unprepared for.
But if any person alive today was going to mount some sort of the future coup against conventional government, spearheaded by the new tech elite, then Mark is a perfect candidate. He is a student of history and demonstratedly strategically effective.
In this light, perhaps the biggest takeaway of a public questioning such as this is how much of a theatrical side show and possibly a distraction it is from the new reality these powerful groups find themselves contesting.
[+] [-] panic|8 years ago|reply
The US Senate doesn't work for the President. They're part of independent branches of government.
[+] [-] gaius|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notspanishflu|8 years ago|reply
For example, the infamous pixel code.
[+] [-] bonestamp2|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lwansbrough|8 years ago|reply
Understanding the full context of this hearing is vital to your opinion on the matter. I'm nobody with an outsider's perspective, but to me Facebook has made very few errors in bad faith. This whole uproar has been about Facebook's well known (or, what I once thought was well know, I guess) practices as a data and advertising platform. We know Facebook cooperates with governments around the world to produce data on its citizens. We know what can happen with our data if we _let_ it fall into the wrong hands.
I started using Facebook when I was 13 in 2007. (As a side note, I think Facebook should not be sharing data about minors to any parties.) I filled out a fair few questionnaires and I may have even participated in "Your digital life" somewhere along the line. At that time I started using Facebook it was providing an interface for establishing informed consent (basically their OAuth flow), to the extent at which it was reasonable for them (which to this day extends beyond the requirements of the law in the US as far as I know.) I consented to sharing my data with the 3rd party, which was essentially a license for that party to own that data. I knew that, and I did it anyway because I couldn't predict the ramifications of its collection and aggregation by a hostile party.
I think the people who are most upset about this whole controversy are the ones who blame it for Russia's Active Measures.
In my opinion, the solution isn't a GDPR-esque approach. I think we have to teach people why data is valuable and how it can be used against them. This is important for both creating an intellectual barrier to the efficacy of propaganda and so that people can make real, informed decisions about their privacy so that when they're asked if they want to share their friends' birthdates and phone numbers, they know what their answer should be.
[+] [-] michaelt|8 years ago|reply
What about when you get a 'shadow profile' based on tracking buttons and pixels on other websites. Have you consented?
How about if you've brought from example-retailer.com in the past and they upload your full contact and mailing details to Facebook to make an ad campaign that targets (or skips) existing customers?
When you don't participate in anything like quizzes on FB Platform, but your grandma does so FB hands your details over to the quiz company anyway as part of Grandma's list of friends, have you consented?
What about when you deliberately haven't given certain data to Facebook, and they buy it from a advertising data broker instead?
IMHO people who think consent is the only issue here don't fully understand the problems.
[+] [-] smadge|8 years ago|reply
"Zephyr Teachout is an American academic, political activist, and former political candidate."
[+] [-] distances|8 years ago|reply
No solution that involves teaching or educating users will work. It's simply not possible without some drastic measures such as a real change in school curriculum and waiting for the older generations to pass. It doesn't work with IT security, it will not work with privacy either.
[+] [-] ngcazz|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maire|8 years ago|reply
Even for the technically proficient there were issues. For instance, FB changes the privacy policies without notifying anyone. When FB rolled out the friends of friends feature my son was in college. He continually rejected my friend requests saying "we have something better than friendship." Then one day I could see his entire feed. I debated if I should let him know - and finally I called him. He immediately disabled the friends of friends feature. In my opinion this was a data breach.
Two things were the final straw for me. The first was that friends behavior was releasing my data when my friends acted irresponsibly. The second was that FB was tracking data offline of FB.
[+] [-] notacoward|8 years ago|reply
> Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?
What do senators do? Primarily, they get themselves elected. They see that Facebook might have a role in that. They're trying to figure out if it can help them, or help their opponents, or if they can turn it from one to the other. Secondarily, while there's so much negative sentiment about Facebook (I'll write about journalists' role and agenda in fanning those flames another time), they want to be seen as asking hard questions. They don't want to be asking hard questions until they know where the advantage to themselves might be, but they want to seem that way. Anything else is just window dressing.
[+] [-] kristianc|8 years ago|reply
Facebook want to get away with as minimal regulation as possible, and any regulation that does happen it wants to harm its incumbents.
Politicians want to get re-elected, and want regulation in so far as it harms the chances of anyone 'doing a Trump' and using social media to unseat their own Congressional seat. They're not that exercised about privacy otherwise they wouldn't have spent the last year arguing for a right to hack people's phones.
Users want to make the right noises / virtue signals to their friends about privacy but ultimately don't want to pay for Facebook.
'Researchers' want to make a name for themselves off the back of this issue and appear on TV but Oh My God don't ask me any questions about how this actually works or what an alternative looks like.
The media and publishers want the exposure and ad revenue that comes from running this story, but want to avoid anyone asking any difficult questions about them signing over their involvement in FB schemes such as Instant Articles or how they track their own users.
The process worked exactly as designed - it allowed everyone to have their pound of flesh while ensuring nothing actually gets done.
[+] [-] twostoned|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cconcepts|8 years ago|reply
Babylonbee seem to be doing a good job of spreading FBs transgressions via satire: http://babylonbee.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-promises-to-do-be...
[+] [-] zippy786|8 years ago|reply
Zuckerberg: Yes, there are two options. First to deactivate because students and want to suspend and come back because they want to study for exam. Second option is users can totally delete all their data.
Where is the second option anyone from Facebook ? There is only an option to delete the account after you DIE, not an option to delete it when you are alive.
So many lies.
[+] [-] oneplusone|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ftlio|8 years ago|reply
The openness to the idea of AI modulating discourse so that we don't ever have to feel uncomfortable was my favorite part.
[+] [-] Simulacra|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AnnoyingSwede|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonbarker|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nikita_Sadkov|8 years ago|reply
After the ban they also enabled forced pre-moderation on all my wall posts (everything I post to my wall gets marked with "We removed this post because it looks like spam and doesn't follow our"), so now I cant post anything at all. Do we need more proofs that Zuckerberg is a Putin's friend? Hello, Facebook! I'm a citizen of Russia who is just being critical of Russia and Putin. How much Russia pays Zuckerberg to censor dissent opinion and promote Russian puppets, like Donald Trump?
[+] [-] msie|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bArray|8 years ago|reply
Current hearing live on Youtube: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16812334
[+] [-] avoutthere|8 years ago|reply