Zuck is reinforcing a lie. “Mr. Z, does FB allow users to delete their data?” Z's confirmation relies on “their data”, and the misunderstanding of legal concepts in privacy rights, property and contract law.
Z is affirming users can delete content they publish. Put aside questions on whether it is actually deleted, or when, or if its all the content. He avoids what I’m certain our policymakers are really trying to ask “Can users delete all data about themselves?” The truth: No.
The first layer of confusion is a half truth. Content is data, and so is the derivative information about content. The second layer of confusion is around property and contract law. Content that users publish is assumed “user property” (presuming no copyright conflicts). However, when a user uploads, under terms of FB EULA they grant unlimited rights of that content to FB, by contract law. —Per FBs POV, they are magnanimous in allowing users to remove exhibition of users' content, but that doesn't constrain FB’s rights to its copy(ies).
Per property law the derivative data that FB ’s generates about content/users is solely the property of FB. The user has no rights to limit that data property, except where it conflicts with user Privacy rights (3). FB gets around Privacy rights, and preserves its monetization model, by obscuring personally identifiable information (PII).
If want we want is to effectively stop the exploitation of users online, we need something like the GDPR.
2
Hi Folks. Did y'all use Google or Facebook to log in and leave these comments?
The irony is that many sitting in the House and Senate hearings only got there to grill him because of the abuse and intel gathered and sold by Facebook that they benefitted in their elections.
Why are the Mercers not being grilled by the Senate and House? Is it because the Mercers donate to the politicians' campaign coffers and Zuckerberg does not?
Attn Editors" (seemed violate the new law )
"But European regulators and privacy advocates said over the last week that a number of Facebook’s current practices seemed violate the new law, called the General Data Protection Regulation."
What a bunch of hypocrites! How quickly we forget that the Republican majority congress, on a party-line bill, just about a year ago, voted to allow internet service providers to do what they like with our personal browsing history. This article from the New York Times gives a great description of the scam was that was pulled by Comcast, Verizon, Charter etc., to allow them to repeal the FCC rules and protections placed by previous administrations. At least Facebook is "free", we pay for the privilege of having our browsing privacy compromised.
How the Republicans Sold Your Privacy to Internet Providers
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/opinion/how-the-republicans-sold-your...
1
Congress better get aggressive and in a hurry. No amount of "self policing" should ever be allowed. And Zuckerberg's stonewalling only proved what we already know, he is a sociopath, he is wealthy and he's going to act to protect his billions. He has no moral compass. To pretend that he didn't realize how invasive FB was being is ludicrous. It is high time to address a right to privacy.
1
Basically this data mining thief, took people's personal data and sold it off to the highest bidders. He made billions from it.
He claims people own their data and not FB. So if he sells your data, shouldn't you be entitled substantial royalties?
Why aren't the senators proposing royalties to the owners of the data?
When FB had their initial public offering share prices jumped to $45 and $48. The company was not making money and I thought that it should be valued at about $20 - $25 a share. So, I deferred, I didn't want to buy at the IPO price. I bought shares of Facebook a few months later at about $25 - $28 a share. I made multiple purchases. My concern was how they would be able to monetize, earn a profit, from their application platform. It had to be the collection, packaging and selling of user data. I sold all my shares a couple weeks ago and it is looking like a good value now at about $158 a share, but my investing strategy has changed. I do not have a Facebook page, that is for suckers, nothing is for free, but I get taken, too. That is life in this digital world. You want to test it out? Jump from NYT to Amazon and click on a couple products, anything, purses, hats, light bulbs. Then come back to NYT, what do you see advertised in the banners (and I pay for my subscription)? How do you monetize your platform in the digital age? Corporations are people and advertising is free speech. Free speech is a first amendment right. We are in a new age. But I am an old boomer, not long for this age. Millennials will have to deal with it. And, if you don't like the old fogies in Congress, vote.
2
Republicans, ever the victims, had more questions about perceived bias against conservatives than questions about privacy and data protection.
Facebook a monopoly? Is that a joke? With the literally, not figuratively, literally millions of social networking sites, both niche and mainstream, how is that even a question? Have these people never used the internet before?
It has to be the most tedious part of the gov't officials and witnesses like Z's lives to have to face the obnoxious questioning of Congress. As many witnesses, Z showed himself to be more than the equal of most of his examiners, many who were ill-informed, rude or played the tired game of trying to make the witness answer yes/no to complex questions or acted as if he was being forced by them to agree to things he had already agreed with. Grandstanding. Some are decent and acknowledged the enormity of what he has accomplished. Not enough.
I am impressed by the technology but sort of dislike the whole fb thing for reasons you can easily guess. I do have an account (no friends) mostly to use as a tool. However, I was surprised when listening how impressed I was by this man, who seemed much stronger, more articulate and wiser than his goads. I appreciate the tradition and necessary civility in testifying, but his repeating their title (e.g., "Senator . . .") before answering each question became an irritant and you got the feeling he used it to disarm them. He may be wise there, as some seem to be appeased by being addressed that way and the media was hoping he came off badly.
It seems to me that fb already does an amazing job in a difficult new technology and it will get better at it over time. The issues are important, but I feel like our privacy is already gone for those online now. Regs are fine as most agree, but, Z is right - details matter.
1
This is an international scandal because the privacy of people in many countries has been compromised, in particular by how Cambridge Analytica "harvested" (i.e. stole) user data from Facebook. The Mercers are prominent in CA, and media reports have associated Steve Bannon to this effort during the 2016 election campaign. Nothing in this article addresses the question of whether there is shared responsibility between the Mercers, Bannon and Facebook in the CA activity, and whether the Mercers and Bannon should also be investigated for possibly being party or accessory to any illegal practices in this regard.
It is important on an international scale that not only are the privacy laws strengthened, but those who break current laws are brought to account.
Finally, there is the question of the users. Users need to be educated to assume that anything they wish to retain privately they should not share on social media sites, and to not join any social media sites that require sharing of information they wish not to share. It's always easy to blame others, but at some point personal behavior must play a disciplining role in privacy management.
The hypocrisy is genuinely stunning. When the Obama team used facebook data in his campaign, it was brilliant. When it's done on behalf of Trump, the liberals demand blood and regulations. Typical.
Note the difference between a clearly branded app for Obama, and the covert, deceitful strategy pursued by the Mercer's data harvesters for the GOP. Further, GOP legislators asked as many inane questions as the Dems. On both sides, lack of preparation and technical literacy was, to use Mr. Trump's favorite phrase this week - "a disgrace".
1
You clearly didn't read the article which carefully explains that the Obama data scrape was transparent and opt-in whereas the "on behalf of Trump" version was covert and dishonest.
2
The Obama team used voluntary opt-in data, they didn't steal data surreptitiously. Typical that you would misrepresent it.
2
FB and Google surveillance systems.
The dream of any totalitarian system.
3
I am no fan of what's happened at FB, or of MZ but this questioning exposed a vast seam of technologically illiteracy among lawmakers. They sound like Rip van Winkles, were they asleep? They do not know what to ask, and are mostly just doing the political pile-on. FB has to be regulated like any large media platform. Simple as that. And users can't be so dumb either.
5
This is an object lesson in government regulation - or lack of it. It's glaringly obvious that European governments are not as coddling of private industry as American government is. It's a truism to say that government is bought and sold by private corporations. Europe, and Europeans, accept that there are limits to what corporations can do and empower their governments to serve as watchdogs. Americans are happy to let industry throw bones ($) over the fence to keep the watchdogs busy while private interests make all the rules.
Will facebook and google pull out of Europe? Not a chance. If similar - or harsher - regulations are adopted in the US, will facebook and google pull out of the US market? Not in this lifetime. Congress has yet to speak, but if they run true to form there will be a wrist slap, ironed out in the offices of K Street lobbyists and golf courses across America. Chime in if you don't believe this.
2
Russians, Cambridge Analytics (i.e. rightwing-funded data stealing), lack of privacy....and some conservative senators and congressmen can only either fantasize they are the real victims or whine about Obama. We are ruled by children.
4
It is very easy to tell who is the smartest guy in the room
1
65 and 70 year old Congress People who have NO IDEA even what Facebook is. Still in 1970 and they are making laws for TODAY.
That panel should be required watching as to WHY we need term limits.
Painful to watch and listen to. An inquisition of Zuckerberg by people who can't program thier VCR....you almost expected:
"Mr Zuckerberg...how do I get the 12:00 to stop blinking on my clock radio, and do you think we need to regulate that?"
Wow. And they want to REGULATE Facebook.
Meanwhile, regulations on clean air, clean water, MPG standards, emission standards, rules governing use of public lands are tossed out willy-nilly.
When will I wake up from this nightmare?!?!??!!??!
11
I couldn't believe Lindsey Graham's questions during day one, it was totally unprepared and frankly idiotic. And he's supposed to be "the smart one". Software applications are not cars.
1
Interesting how 4Chan and TOR never came up.
When 20 million profiles of Federal Employees were stolen by the Chinese equivalent to the IRA in St. Petersburg Russia, including SF-86 forms and financial data, our legislators barely said a word.
For the people that FB kicks off for hate speech - they go to 4Chan, and if Cruz wants to find his friends,that's where they reside, post, and seeth with evil.
3
Wow - it really is scary how clueless our Congress is about the internet. If you've watched these hearings, numerous Senators and Congressmen and women have absolutely embarrassed themselves with their ignorance in these hearings. Congresswoman Clarke from Brooklyn, NY didn't even pronounce Mark Zuckerberg's name correctly. She called him Mr Zuckerman. His name has only been plastered on the front page of every paper across the country and she gets his name wrong? Who elects these people? I truly am concerned that Congress may try to pass laws about something for which they have little or no real knowledge. One Congressman kept calling Facebook pages websites. It is appalling how ignorant our own government representatives are about internet technology and it is clear that we need to elect much younger, smarter representatives. What an embarrassment and they don't even know it.
7
Zuckerberg, “Don’t worry, in five years AI will be doing my job for me, only better!”
Translation: Facebook does not currently possess the capacity to protect our information or our democracy.
If you build a product that is potentially dangerous, but you don’t have the means at your disposal to mitigate that danger, aren’t you liable for the damage your product causes?
2
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by the ignorance of our lawmakers, but I am. I’m no Facebook fan. I cancelled my account and permanently deleted the data years ago. Facebook is free to the user. It has hundreds of thousands of employees and millions of dollars invested in hardware. The trade-off for free is that you give up something of value other than money. In this case, your profile. Just as I pay the NYT for unlimited access to it’s journalism, I would happily pay a social media site for it’s services if it wouldn’t track me.
4
I am deeply confused about the republican line of questioning around suppression of conservative viewpoints. Um, is Facebook not a private company that can have whatever political bend it desires? Facebook algorithms prioritize content based on any number of factors they believe will drive user engagement. If they choose to throttle content accordingly, isn't that their God-given right in the USA?
2
This was the question I had.
1
While Mr. Zuckerberg insisted on calling his profit-making corporation a "community," and Senators suggested other possibilities, I think we should all call it what is. It is an advertising agency.
2
The problem of dense legalese in user agreements is not just a Facebook issue. Every company, every organization uses it, and all of their legal departments make sure that it is so long and incomprehensible that no one will read it before checking the box to continue. Congress might think about a regulation that spans all industries about user agreement language.
Also, the types of questions that many of the congressmen and women were asking -- wow, they clearly have no clue about the Internet, technology, web services, social media, including Facebook. Where have they been??? I bet all of them have a Facebook page for their constituents and I bet most of them don't ever go on their own page but have their staffers maintain it for them.
We do need to regulate tech companies especially with regard to privacy, but maybe these fools in congress should do some homework on it first.
1
The hearings have been one of the best forums to date to put a spotlight on how technology has rocketed far ahead of systems -- justice, governance, financial markets, media -- that have evolved in our liberal democracies over hundreds of years.
The senators were like Grade 3 students asking Einstein about relativity, profoundly befuddled techno-dinosaurs, only able to grasp the broad outlines of the digital architecture behind the Facebook behemoth Zuckerberg has created. For many he had to explain basics like how privacy preferences could be turned on/off. It's was like someone attempting to explain the the myriad engineering and design workings of a modern car to an Amazonian rain forest native: "First you have to put the key in the ignition, that little hole over there."
How can our elected representatives "control" what they cannot understand?
4
And the worst part of it is, technologically, Facebook is a piece of cake to understand.
Just wondering if there is a service/website that would allow users to create a personal website, connect with friends to share photos and comments - kind of what I thought facebook was way back when - without all the extra nonsense (games, excessive adds, trying to access my address book). I have little sympathy for those who haven't abandoned facebook already. I have zero tolerance for the idea that facebook should have to police who places ads on its site unless they are grotesque/offensive etc. More than anything, I wish our national media would focus on something other than facebook data lack of data privacy and President Trump.
Zuckerberg's obsession with AI being the answer to everything is dangerous and short-sighted. But what's new, all FB (and others) grave mistakes are grounded in the unwillingness to see the broader picture in favor of 'glitter' and short term gain.
1
Sounds more like the tail wagging the dog. Clearly, the laissez-faire approach to Facebook has resulted in abuses that threaten nation security, however, legislators sound like Zuckerberg’s perspectives and largess will be the guiding principles as to whether and how to regulate. Way to go Congress! It is entirely disingenuous when Zuckerberg gets all Doey-eyed and suggests they had no idea Cambridge Analytica would or could harvest user data for nefarious political purposes. The data rip off was the “feature” and not the bug. The rub was that the algorithm was used to advance (or subvert, depending on your perspective) political power as opposed to selling merchandise. This is where Big Brother needs to step in and tell tech that just because you ‘can’ doesn’t mean that you should! And with more than 2 billion users any debate as to whether it is a monopoly is an insult to anyone’s intelligence. Transparency and control are the only two qualities than legislation need address. Obviously, the app elicits the exhibitionist in all of us. However, if told what you intend to do with my preferences and data I’d have to own any problems that arise from being or feeling exposed. Isn’t this all part of freedom of choice and expression? Zuckerberg chooses to ignore this. Congress shouldn’t either!
2
I think the congress should educate them selves about what Facebook actually does. I think the congress just scraped the surface of what FB does and how it effects the citizens of the US. After becoming educated the congress should call back Zuckerberg for more pointed questioning and learn what FB really does by scraping data and who they let do it. The EU may be considered more socialistic then the USA but they are way ahead of the Government here in understanding what FB does without questioning Zuckerberg. Congress needs to get with it.
Zuckerberg has adopted a modification of the "deer in the headlights" look today. Or perhaps a "Who? Me?" His response again at a later time regarding the opiods was pretty amazing and he proved himself an able song and dance man. When asked if he would take down the illegal websites today, he replied that "we'd have to build tools....etc etc and so forth."
No, kid, it's not about building more techie tools. It's about doing the right thing. Now. Today. The tool-building can happen about something less immediate and necessary.
I was surprised and not in a good way to learn some of the tricks Facebook and its more nefarious users can pull on even those of us who do NOT use Facebook. That smacks of something besides simply bad management of Facebook. Something more serious and more devious. Facebook wins and Zuckerberg gets richer even if we click on some website other than Facebook...how is that possible or legal?
Zuckerberg and his minions have undermined our faith in the entire Internet and all he wants to do is build more tools to continue to do this. All about money.
1
So, I learned something from all of this. I went to my settings and checked ads. Every time I liked something or opened it, Facebook allowed them access to all of my information. There were over 300 of them. To block ads, I had to go to each one and it block it separately. But the damage has already been done. Plus, the advertisers gave my information to anyone affiliated with them. So Facebook is really just a sleazy con to generate billions based on giving our information (that we agreed to supply to join Facebook) to advertisers. And they sell that to other "affiliated" advertisers. So even deleting my account, it is too late. Zuckerberg needs to be held accountable for this. I realize that we knew Facebook owned this information, but it has spiraled out of control, selling demographics to campaign staff, etc., clearly using our innocent use of a platform to share pictures of vacations, children and pets into one that helps sway elections and the direction of our country. If this isn't grounds for a class-action suit, I will be surprised.
11
No Janice, everytime you added an app, signed in using your Facebook account or took a quiz to find out what character from Friends you are; you agreed to allow that app to access your data. It has always been right in front of us, but most simply click away their privacy on a daily basis.
3
No Matt. I do not do apps or take quizzes. These were just pagesI liked or opened.
3
No, I do not use apps or take quizzes. It was simply liking a page or opening an ad. I deleted all the ads. Most were from pages I have never seen or liked.
I certainly haven't and won't watch much of any of this. So I'm asking, did anyone ask Zuckerberg the most important question in the minds of so many Americans? Can a Facebook user quit the platform, delete his or her account and by doing so remove all traces of their personal information and data from all things Facebook? Is there a way to do that, and if there isn't, why not, and will you provide one to users who want to log out of Facebook permanently? What measures will you take to ensure that those user's data is wiped clean from your servers or wherever you store user data?
Just please tell me someone on those panels is enough of a Facebook user to have naturally wondered about these questions themselves to the point that they would have come up in the hearing.
8
You're right of course. But I can see facebook resisting this idea very strongly. However, if they are smart, and most businesses are *not* smart in this regard, they will agree to your idea eagerly, knowing that maybe 1/2% of their users will actually opt out. But big companies think fighting regulation is better than going along with it at far less cost, and generating a lot of good will.
1
You are right, these are the key questions, and no, no honest answers. To me it sounds like you would be the perfect citizen to get engaged on this issue. I hope sitting out of viewing these sessions is more to do with the forum than resignation from the issue. --the latter is how the current administration got elected.
1
I have read it is impossible to purge the data they pass on. Plus, if you have messenger, they have all of your contacts. Plus they keep a file of everyone you unfriended. They are scarier than I thought. But google is bad, too.
2
Now lets get Cambridge Analytica on the hot seat.
11
Facebook is now responsible for the Opioid crisis in America. They need to police the illegal pharmacies? Same guys that have done ZERO to help control the REAL problem with these pharma companies. Hillarious.
7
this I agree with, having more transparency and easier access to settings would be useful.
1
Still not clear on what Facebook did that is wrong/bad. Data mining and analytics has revolutionized marketing and you can't put that genie back in the bottle. I get that people are mad that FB has found a way to make millions using information that they get for free, but good advertising has always had the ability to manipulate people - that's what makes it good. I would rather see targeted ads that might be if interest to me than a bunch of meaningless stuff. Does anyone have illusions about the data being collected by every company with an online presence?
6
Wrong. Never before has it been possible to collect so much *private* information from people without their knowledge or consent. You may have decided for yourself whether "tastes great" or "less filling" was most important to you, but all they did was show you a video.
This is an entirely different world, and one where *you* have no rights. In fact, you are consenting to complete exposure of your life. You may be OK with that (you clearly are) but I'm not and I don't want someone of your point of view keep me from keeping my information out of the hands of unscrupulous operators, big business, and government. If you want to opt in to ads, fine with me. I don't want to see ads at all. If the internet collapses for lack of advertising, it maybe wasn't such a good idea to begin with, and I will not mourn.
3/3
The whole "Facebook-Hearing" was so-far just a f*cking Farce, latest when US Congress asked Mark to "submit proposals for (Facebook's) Regulation", Mark is an ELITE US-University in Psychology-educated and yet neither he now his high league of elites did not realized that military-style Hitler/Stalin/Mussoli-style propaganda were run and paid for in different Currencies on Mark's and Thiel's BS-"Predictive Algorithms-pushing plattforms? Really now, Mark How stupid do you think Humans are, boy? You do realize most of us educated in Western-Europe and else-where are not yet as brain-dead on guns, god and Opioids as your US American Libertarian religious conservative GOP fellows, right Mark?!
https://www.theguardian.com/news/gallery/2017/may/24/hate-speech-and-ant...
https://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-data-collection-faq
4
We are giving our all personal stuff to this guy for free, Sorry no more facebook. #Deletefacebook
2
I'm not. Never have and never will. When Facebook first appeared, I created a test account, took one look at what it was, immediately deleted said account, and never looked back. (Of course, now, "deleting" your account on FB isn't so easy).
4
I just deleted 15 days back by downloading all my stuff permanently.
MeWe.com is a free, privacy-respecting social app. #Not4sale
Rather than FB, a data-gathering app, where WE are the product. #DeleteFacebook #MeWe #FreshStart # Not4sale
Watching the live broadcast here is interesting and I'm aware of a couple of things -
1. Zuckerberg continually gives the impression that all the Facebook problems and issues raised by the Congressmen and women have been thrust upon him and he's an innocent in the situation. Wrong.
2. The Congress, especially the younger members, are well-educated about Facebook and the problems.
3. Zuckerberg took it in the shorts on the opiod question.
Good work by the Congressmen and women today.
6
Talk about cherry picking regulation. Hands off Financial, Arms, Pharma and Energy sectors because laissez faire capitalism and individual responsibility works so darn well. When it comes to Silicon Valley and those young, not-always-white/not always right-wing entrepreneurs, that sector needs to be regulated.
It's a heck of a lot easier for consumers to use a few privacy tools in FB than it is to make sure the water they drink is clean. What government should be regulating - it doesn't. No fan of FB but if consumers want private - pay for it, or be responsible. Learn how to use some simple tools and read the TOS.
RE profliferation of fake news and its impact on democracy - reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine and start with FOX.
7
Privacy and sovereignty are paramount to a functioning democracy. Without a functioning democracy, we can’t fix any other problem.
Also, Silicon Valley seems awfully white and awfully male to me.
Mr. Zuckerberg, obviously at the advice of his attorneys, usually the "generally label far too much in his testimony. His eyes and body posture gave away whatever stress (clearly) he had. I'm sorry that Senators, individually, had so little time to grill him on specifics without getting answers like "...we weill ook into that and get back to you" what's going here....left=learning fine, but playing the game of big corporate machines looking for profits?
1
The main question to be asked regarding their business model is “do you agree that perfect competition is good for consumers and perfect discrimination is bad for consumers?”
The more data these companies have to precisely target people, the less of a fair deal each customer will get. The more often the products we buy are commodities, the better off we all are. Lowest prices at the best quality.
The saddest thing is that the very people tasked with overseeing companies like Facebook obviously don’t know enough about the company or the industry. They knew this hearing was coming, they had time to prepare, yet many of those questions made me feel embarrassed for our representatives. How can they hope to fix the problem when it’s obvious they don’t understand the problem.
10
I just had the option to log in with my Google or Facebook account to comment on this thread. And if I wanted to respond from the NY Times app, I agreed to their user agreement terms within the app, meaning I gave them permission to store and use my data. Don't forget the terms that I agreed to when I purchased my IPhone X. My email is on my phone, I used messenger on my phone, I log in.. post, comment and search within Facebook. This is not just a Facebook issue. Google ads and all of paid advertising use the same user data to categorize us into demographics and 'behaviors' when targeting us as consumers. Apple, Google, Samsung, all the tech companies do the same thing. Mark is genius...and he is outsmarting all of them. Congress needs to hire some digital advertising consultants.
8
you could use DuckDuckGo, as I do, instead of Google. they claim they don't sell your stuff. I give them an annual donation.
What privacy, I don't see how Facebook amassing data nowadays is different from a department store amassing data about their customers 30-40 years ago and selling it to mailing list companies which in turn reselling our information again and again, why do you think you are asked for your phone number on checkout...
This practice was there for ages.
Also, people forget that when you post anything online today its up for grab, text, images, audio or video.
So please, enough with crying about loosing our privacy.
Overregulation is not the answer, too much regulation will drive innovation from our country. Subscribers should use common sense on how they read thing online, and take responsibility for what they post on line.
4
Let's face it people. Shareholders before citizens. Even the performance of most legislators in this "grilling" testimony is just that--a performance.
7
Facebook has crossed the line in sharing personal data. I get it. I have deleted my account permanently (not difficult to do). Is my life now forever changed, somehow less satisfying? Do I miss knowing that a friend of an acquaintance has a toothache or found the planet’s best sushi restaurant? Nope. We all opted into this site. We can opt out.
13
Zuckerberg says AI will fix problems in the social media tech field. It will never as long as there are personalities like Zuckerberg leading the industry.
10
I think Zuck was defensive but non-apologetic about his methods and business model, which tells me he ain't going change a thing and will probably push forward with his data collection methods. He basically boasted and advertised his companies' ability to use AI and face recognition to scoop up even more data. This has very little to do with preventing terrorism on FB, because FB is being exposed as the terrorist of our digital lives.
8
This is much ado about nothing. Let us not assume that this was anything but grandstanding by the GOP majority. There is not any possibility whatsoever that the GOP would agree to any sort of regulation, whether they actually understand the technology or not. Essentially, they will go to their home district and say "I defended you and your privacy" by asking questions.
6
Setting aside the Facebook problems, it is rich to listen to the honourable members of Congress pontificate on transparency, repsonsibility, failure to forsee/correct problems - the group that passed a billion dollar tax bill without allowing anyone to read it; the group that has only shown concern for their big donors. The committee inquisitors showed no knowldege regarding the digital problems we face and have no credibility on anything.
20
I think you mean trillion $ tax deal, which is correct.
2
Mr. Walden floated the prospect of regulation, saying that “I think it is time to ask whether Facebook may have moved too fast and broken too many things.”
Pretty rich reading a Republican advocating regulation during the era of Swamp Draining.
5
One consistent message came telegraphing through my television; “complete control of content” is the snake oil Zuckerberg was peddling to Facebook users as he nefariously violated their privacy for billions in profits. He had help. The USA Congress who represent free enterprise not “we the people”. The Old World, Europe, demands Facebook to protect its people’s privacy. Mark obeys.
Do I believe Mark is sincere in his recurring apology tour? No! The essential character trait Mark is missing, trustworthiness. If you cannot trust a leader, you cannot trust his organization or services.
Facebook is a malware!
9
Facebook doesn't do anything that YOU don't give them permission to do...lack of personal responsibility is the issue here. He is not the world's babysitter.
14
It’s not about being a baby sitter, it’s about protecting individual’s privacy as a company’s core value. It’s a principle we take very seriously in medicine. Representative Bobby Rush’s question goes at the heart of this essential, “Why is the onus on the user to opt in to privacy and security settings?”
The Europeans demand it! Ahh the beauty of being a citizen of EU. As this article clearly outlined, if read, “For one thing, the European law requires privacy by design and default. European experts said that, in their view, that would require Facebook turn off a number of advertising and privacy settings which are currently set to sharing and instead ask user permission to turn them on”
1
They failed to protect data, that's clearly their responsibility.
Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us. Time to regulate this monopoly the same way that TV and radio is regulated.
1) The big take away for me....FB collects info on you EVEN if you don’t have an account. And in order to find out what they have, you have to make a FB Page.
2) the business model is set up for PROFIT. There is NO way to make a profit without YOUR data being protected.
And BTW, why in the world did Congress just pass a bill that REDUCES internet privacy in March 2017? Now providers will be able to monitor their customers’ behavior online and, without their permission, use their personal and financial information to sell highly targeted ads — making them rivals to Google and Facebook in the $83 billion online advertising market.
10
Mr. Zuckerberg has a lot of work ahead of him (or maybe not!). After finding this separate article (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/us/politics/mercer-family-cambridge-a...®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection) about the Mercer family, this needs to be stopped.
3
Trying to process that multiple Republican Congressmen expressed greater concern for FOX contributors “Diamond & Silk’s” deleted account (FB error now corrected) than for Russian election interference. Marsha Blackburn (TN) and Billy Long (MO) were especially incensed. Long characterized them as “conservative” and “humorous,” which now calls into question the definition of both words.
Yesterday, in the Senate, there were many uninformed overly broad questions. It was embarrassing that so many Senators just did not make sense. As Jake Tapper said, “The Senators didn’t seem all that familiar with the product.”
The public would have been better served had Senators consulted with tech experts/reporters (like Kara Swisher or
Cecilia Kang) in order to drill down on meaningful specifics.
While Zuckerberg was respectful and patient, it was disheartening to hear many in Congress use this as a platform for nothing more than grandstanding.
For the most part - these hearings were a missed opportunity.
22
FJM,
"...it was disheartening to hear many in Congress use this as a platform for nothing more than grandstanding.
"For the most part - these hearings were a missed opportunity."
I agree. After all, aren't MOST Congressional hearings a missed opportunity?! Aren't the members -- especially those in the House, who must run for re-election every two years -- basically "playing to their base" back home? The real work of "sausage making" is done in committee and behind the scenes, prepared by staffers. Increasingly, the public spectacle is, well, a spectacle, fit for daytime/primetime, in HD and living color.
1
Any time anyone goes online data about them is being harvested and saved by a variety of tactics about with most people are ignorant or choose to ignore. If you don't want entities to know about you without your knowledge, stay off the internet. And don't shop on it. I'd rather congress cleaned their own house and while they are at it fix the totally useless Do Not Call Registry.
12
So where is the CEO from Equifax? How come our Congress can't bring themselves to confront that issue?
33
ABSOLUTELY!!
It was mentioned.
If you want to protect your privacy from this point forward you should #DeleteFacebook. This is political theater. Expecting Congress to protect privacy rights- those who gave you the Patriot Act, secret FISA courts, repealed Net Neutrailty, granted retroactive immunity to telecoms that spied on you- are you kidding me? Relying on Mark Zuckerberg- the guy who runs a business that depends on your giving up your private information- to the tune of his $60 billion net worth? Wake up.
13
It's not an option for many people to delete FB. The genie is out of the tech bottle and social media is not going anywhere. Nor are those @the NY Times who are also collecting data as we read, write, comment, subscribe, etc. It would be about deleting the internet and social media altogether, which most of us, including you as a commenter, like me, are probably not going to do.
4
FB is genetically a sham from its inception which has become totally out of control. What began as a virtual theft from the originators, by an employee ,who became through a court trial ,the owner by manipulation of data. FB has continued to grow by unruly and borderline means ,as it was created.
4
All appropriate government agencies, domestic and international, should fine Facebook heavily and then shut them down permanently.
1
Fine THEM? They cannot be expected to babysit their users.....people need to take responsibility for what THEY agree to. So tired of the lack of personal responsibility.
8
You’re right. In fact, why have any laws at all? When someone wrongs us, we should just exercise some personal responsibility in the form of an angry mob.
Hey, if there was rat poison in the baby formula that’s just too bad, personal responsibility says I should be at that farm, making sure that farmer uses good practices. Just like everyone else does.
Let’s just make pyramid schemes legal too. Why should the government protect citizens from bad actors? Personal responsibility!
3
Most people don't know what they agree to, T's & C's can be quite confusing unless you are a lawyer, and even if users agree their friends certainly didn't. Interfering in our elections crosses a red line. Fine them and shut them down!
I’ve worked in internet advertising, including on Facebook, for 5 years, I’ve also worked on a Facebook app for one of my clients. Zuckerberg was a lot more open and honest than any other CEO I’ve seen testifying before our legislators. It’s evident from other comments and from the remarks of our legislators that there are some pretty scary conspiracy theories out there that are completely false and show a lack of understanding for how the internet or internet advertising works. I agree that a plain language terms of service and right to rectify make sense, but don’t be paranoid. As an advertiser, I never know who has seen my ads or even who has clicked on them. The only way I or any other advertiser can identify you is if you interact with a brand directly by liking that brands page, giving that brand your email or contact info, or granting access to an app created by that brand. The reason FB didn’t anticipate the breach is because reputable advertisers and app developers would never risk getting kicked off of Facebook by misusing user data. It’s a brand new industry and it’s hard to anticipate all the creative ways people might try to exploit it. (How long after inventing the car did it take to legislate seat belt use or drunk driving?) We need to keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of Americans are employed by this industry and/or rely on it for affordable advertising for their business, so we need to be thoughtful and nuanced in any legislation that we consider.
14
The reason FB didn't anticipate the breach is because the company is run by kids, not adults. Any auditor would have warned them of the potential for massive breaches. FB either didn't have routine audits, or ignored the advice of the auditors. No professional mature businessperson would have put themselves in this position.
finally, some common sense on this issue. thank you for your comment.
The ignorance of lawmakers concerning technology is why Facebook, Google and the like are able to run circles around them.
It's little wonder they've largely been left to their own devices.
22
Since the average age of congress is 63 and judging from the questions they don't understand how this technology works. Or how Facebook, and Google hide their settings, make them hard to find and use, since the security settings are in different places.
10
Correct. It is a generational thing. I am shocked how many of my older friends on FB truly do not get how it works or the breadth and depth of this lack of transparency. I've had friends post on their FB page things like "Oh I never used the apps on FB I hope that means I'm ok". Wow. How uninformed does it get? Others have posted to me that it's just another "data breach" and what's the big deal? Or that they've never given anything more than their name to FB?!!! Wow.
1
Lawmakers aren't the ignorance ones. It's the 99.9999% of Facebook users that have zero aptitude about technology. That's why they're so dumb about privacy issues and data mining. That's also why they use a crummy, predatory advertising pyramid scheme known as Facebook.
If they don't know about Facebook there are 2 billion people, including their kids, they could ask. Instead they talk platitudes and let Zuckerberg pretend he doesn't understand how to add 2 2. Ridiculous.
22
This whole examination is just a big political stunt. Nothing is going to come of this, the lawmakers just want to make themselves look better by pretending to address this. If so many people are outraged by this then why doesn't someone create an alternative to Facebook?
Where was the government when equifax had their massive data breach? That concerns my social security number, credit history, and other personal information. I don't have the option of not registering for that service, that's just what happens when you have credit. Why aren't our lawmakers questioning them, and trying to actually protect the important information about us, instead of people looking at my vacation photos and online quiz answers?
37
There have been, Microsoft had a Facebook like social network. Facebook ran them off. The problem is, Facebook, like Google, Apple, because they are so big, they don't want any competition, or anyone to innovate, unless its themselves doing it.
5
Correct. And given we are both writing from Seattle, land of Silicon Valley #2--yes. None of the big tech companies want competition. Microsoft had its day of rather than improve its product drove off the competition. It has gone through years of litigation re anti trust.
2
#Not4sale Try MeWe.com, a privacy-respecting SOCIAL app, rather than FB, a DATA-GATHERING app, where WE are the product. #DeleteFacebook # Fresh start
The only thing clearly elucidated by the 2-day Congressional hearing on the Facebook data breech is just how far the profit motive combined with engineering skill has gone to outdistance the ability of government to protect the governed. Most senators displayed either childish naïveté and/or lack of experience with the most basic understanding of computational systems. The hearing was further hobbled by lack of agreement on basic terms to describe the components of social media. This demonstration of blind men describing an elephant was further made pointless by Zuckerberg’s sidestepping and obfuscation. It was a command performance, but a dumb show. The engineers have built and unleashed an army of Frankensteins, just one of whom has come back to nip at their well-heeled sneaks, and they’re now intent on making bigger, better, more obedient creatures. They hold virtually all the cards and have no substantial competition.
Engineers have the social skills of a soap dish. But in the era of social media, those skills take a backseat to coding.
26
Couldn't have said it better on the social skills. It's the land of artificial intelligence, not emotional intelligence.
3
Great comment, thanks. Should be a NYT Pick.
If Facebook doesn't own our data, then why can they collect it, track it and give it away? Just because something is "free" doesn't mean it is someone else's to give away. I didn't pay for my date of birth but why should that information be FB's right to give to someone else? What world does Zuckerberg live in? Maybe he and the rest of his arrogant cronies and supporters would like to share how they protect their data from FB and similar operations. Wouldn't it be nice to find out they never post anything or have accounts that get protected treatment?
8
Anyone who doesn't read the fine print, which says they use all the data as they see fit...shouldn't get on them. Almost all the apps on peoples phones ask for information like contacts, pictures, location, etc. If you say sure... then you've given consent. If you don't give consent, do NOT download or use those Apps or Facebook, Google, etc. You are volunteering to engage in a transaction that you agree that you may regret...then click "Install". Some of us remember no computers or cellphones. People did fine without all this stuff.
3
Never used facebook or twitter.
My biggest take away from these hearings is that congress and the senate have no idea what they are talking about. Completely ignorant on a subject they claim is important. Asking the most stupid questions - over and over again. Rooms and rooms full of doltards.
30
Twitter is a bit of a different animal than Facebook. It actually has professional uses. Facebook is a pure behind the curtain advertising/marketing scheme that cannot exist without the voluntary harvesting of data and privacy of users. From a data mining and analytics standpoint, Facebook is more akin to LinkedIn.
2
The questions were not necessarily stupid. They were just not informed and nuanced enough to hit a home run. The issue is not merely whether I can delete my profile (that is an issue of course too). The question is rather whether, irrespective of profile status, I maintain the privilege over my data and if not, whether I am privy to how my data is used. That would constitute a truly informed user consent and that's exactly what we don't have at present.
1
In light of current discoveries, Facebook must add Delete Button to menu. This delete needs to disable all access to a user's information. Deleting all information might be tricky but certainly could be disabled.
6
Since my first comment and Second "DIDN'T/WOULDN'T" Summit, I will attempt yet again. This Man sat on a "CUSHION" to make himself seem Taller and Confident. He "Mark Zuckerberg" is well aware of what Facebook does and is capable of doing with our "INFORMATION" they gather. Anyone who doesn't blindly agree to their terms would clearly know what they are capable of doing. Him stating that he feels like Facebook doesn't have a Monopoly is Ludicrous, If they feel threatened or feel they have any sort of competition they buy them out or provide similar services. They have their hands in everything, IE. look at any other social media median, app, or subscription you use. Even "YOUR NEW YORK TIMES " Subscription gives you the option to "LINK/SIGN IN VIA" Facebook.
7
In his own way, Mark Zuckerberg is the Martin Shkreli of the Internet/Media. He offered something "free" and "fun" for folks who just wanted to be able to let Aunt Bessie know about the kids and then changed the rules by jacking up the "price." The price in this case was personal security, safety and privacy.
While I agree that people on Facebook opted to be there, it was up to the company to offer a simple message about what the company was doing with their information. Given the amount and quality of personal information Zuckerberg and company KNEW people were posting, given that Zuckerberg and company then used the information to sell ads and make their millions, this is just as crass and wrong as Shkreli's behavior.
Can't help but compare the smart, smug attitudes as well. I'll take the Parkland kids anytime instead of the Shkrelis and Zuckerbergs of America.
51
No. Sorry, This is absolute hyperbole and is ridiculous. You can’t compare a guy who raised the prices on life saving drugs to a guy who built a free social media platform that people enter into voluntarily.
5
Not free, never been free, you pay with your data.
1
I have used facebook personally for some time, and also handle advertising for a number of small companies which includes a few thousand bucks a year on Facebook.
From what I have seen of these hearings, our leaders really have no clue what they are talking about. Facebook certainly has some explaining to do, but asking our politicians to deal with this is like asking a plumber to fix a rocket. The majority of what I saw was people that are not qualified to be making decisions here.
25
After watching his performance yesterday - I am definitely deleting Facebook -- if I can JUST figure out how to do it! Any help out there? Should be easy, right? Yeah, sure!
4
You can't only deactivate it, there's a video on here somewhere explaining how it's near impossible.
1
Its pretty simply download all your data from general settings page and Completely delete it. You can google for more instructions as i did it ;-)
3
How do you know the data are actually deleted?
That's just an illusion, geared to making you feel better.
Until Facebook Surveillance Scope is determined, Messenger Kids should be suspended. Parents wanting to get hold of 6 year olds? Not credible. Suspend.
6
The Millennials on their staffs would have been effective.
2
So the people who set up the kangaroo FISA court, let the NSA collect every Americans' data for years, try to weaken encryption whenever they can, did nothing about the Equifax hack, etc., etc., are outraged, OUTRAGED, that Facebook let some bad people collect our data.
Comforting.
11
Unfortunationaly Zuckerberg is much smarter than those asking the questions. Allowing these people to craft legislation is like allowing a bull in the China shop. Stupid legislation is more freighting than unrestricted free speech. Much of what the Washington Post and NY Times write about Trump would not pass some of the tests suggested for Facebook. Actually, Facebook is a competitor of the written and verbal Media. It should remain as such and be subject to the same restraints if any. Use of Data is as old as the list of Super Voters. The technical change to use of Data on Facebook is just more sophisticated. Whether it is better is open to question but it exists for anyone
3
Facebook makes money by collecting your data (anything and everything about you) and selling that data to advertisers and who knows to whom else. Of course, it's not really your data anymore, That's the price one has to pay for "free" access to the social network. You get what you pay for and anyone who still harbors idealistic thoughts vis a vis Facebook needs to take a hard look at the facts; it's a giant data mine.
5
Sure, except facebook doesn't sell data. You are clueless enough to be a senator.
1
Yes, you are right, it magically transfers to the advertisers.
The great majority Senators participating yesterday gave Zuck an unconscionably easy ride.
Here's hoping the Representatives go some way to redeeming the U.S. legislators today.
4
I listened to the entire Senate committee session with Mr. Zuckerberg. He knocked it out of the park with his cheerful & respectful glossed responses. We are doomed! FB rules! Even Senators admit this great invention now is central to communicate with constituents. Yet I'm impressed with what seems to be a benign moral & philosophical position espoused by Zuckerberg. I'm wondering how long that will last. Even he, as clever, experienced and understanding of the issues as he is, seeming to hold his own, will inevitably fall behind the tech curve. Because that is what we do. Just wait. Meantime these pages can assuage the narcissistic needs of 2 billion souls, and counting. (Buy the stock.)
4
It is a Silicon Valley attitude.
Listened yesterday to Zuckerberg while I was driving and pounding the steering wheel in annoyance at his disingenuous answers. He was not being "respectful." He was snickering up his sleeve at how easy it was to put one over on the Senators. His behavior was the same as a snake-oil salesman putting one over on the old lady with rheumatism.
It's appalling to think about how much Zuckerberg is getting away with. The business model designed to monetize (terrible word) people's lives and privacy was a deal with the Devil. Sooner or later, it may come crashing down on Zuckerberg, but yesterday was not the day and today is probably not the day either.
8
Congress is remiss for not having regulated facebook - but again we see how out of touch they are.
4
The problems with Facebook are not the fault of Congress, they're the fault of Facebook and 2 billion idiot users.
2
Ah yes, thank you for reminding us how you created Facebook in your dorm room for noble purposes Mark Zuckerberg. As I recall it, it was to compare/rate the "hotness" of female college coeds, what greater purpose could there be? And it immediately got you into trouble with Harvard for violation of individual privacy.
12
I listened to a small portion of the hearing where a Senator, I believe from North Carolina, was questionning Zuckerberg about diversity issues and other matters. Although, I understand that this is an important matter for all companies, I do not understand how this is relevant considering that I understood that the hearing had something to do with Cambridge Analytica and privacy and data protection matters. Can anyone explain me like if I were a 5 year old. My concern is how politicians around the world are increasingly making a "freak show" out of politics and are constantly looking for the spotlight instead of giving a service to the people!!! It is scary!!!
4
Cory Booker is running for President. You may have been unaware of this until yesterday. Thus his line of "questioning."
1
God help us all when the race industry hyperventilating Cory Booker is in campaign mode.
1
Facebook is so clearly a blight on our social and political fabric. Zuckerberg is a mendacious grifter who has no sense of shame or social responsibility or intention of reforming his little gold mine. Anyone who uses Facebook with what we now know about it is simply a lamb not so much being led as running headlong to the slaughter. Wake up America.
7
Right...such a blight that one BILLION people use it. Honestly, people need to take responsibility for what THEY do on the platform and what data THEY agree to share. He is NOT the world's babysitter, nor should they expect it. I actually feel like he is taking on more responsibility and action than he really should have to....only because there is so much outright ignorance and because he is clearly the sacrificial lamb for all the ills of social media at this point. Genius is rarely understood or rewarded, unfortunately.
1
oooh. cry me a river. so now MZ is the messiah of social media?
Watching Zuck explain-talk to the Congress-people reminds me of my dad trying to explain to our puppy that he shouldn't be pooping in the corner [the puppy - not my dad].
5
Zuckerberg reminds me of tech people who pretend that non-tech talk about tech is unintelligible and insist on explaining and giving tech specs etc. to feel what? Superior. Special.
You also need to remember that they are looking at this from a much broader perspective than FB. I doubt Zuckerberg has a overall understanding of what FB "is" and definitely has no idea (or does not want to have any idea) of the broader implications for society, culture, privacy, security and the future.
Facebook did not have 'news' or 'journalistic' content in its early years. Since they changed from a tech platform to a major news source they have to be held to standards and laws of a journalistic enterprise (or not allow that content/take the ad money).
That would not solve all problems, but one major shortcoming.
24
Like Fox News?
2
It's appalling to see how little the Representatives know about data mining and data scraping. CEO Zuckerberg is constantly allowed to switch back to talking about individuals and how individuals can control their FB page and their individual data sharing, when the Representatives should be pushing Zuckerberg on the specific corporate practices of FB and how specifically the company handles all of these people's data.
69
With rare exception (like Kamala Harris), the Senators' complete ignorance of how Facebook works (or how 21st-century technology in general works) made this an easy session for Zuckerberg. I can't believe these people are in charge of making our laws.
54
Deb Dingle was the best. The worst was the last one who pulled out his copy of the Constitution and lectured about how the companies should have to protect free speech and not just the government. It is never a good sign to have reps so ignorant of the Constitution and its limits. Next was the group of reps who only wanted to complain about how Christians and Conservatives can't put their hate speech on Facebook and feel their rights are not respected.
3
Almost as meaningless and as much a waste of time as Facebook itself. From the same "Congress " that had hearings about baseball...
7
Facebook is a 40 billion dollar company with a huge amount of social information stored in it's databases. This is possibly and probably the most info ever stored in the history! Say what you want, but this is just too tempting, too potentially powerful and too potentially lucrative for powerful people and powerful cartels to ignore.
We have reached a point where the populations can be expertly manipulated, to buy, to think to believe without our even realizing it. Be it consumer goods, politics, religion...you name it. Add to this the monopolistic trend of the print, television and radio media and we have a recipe for disaster (in my opinion).
I really don't see a solution as this is a global capitalistic world. This info will be used. Hoping for the best is foolish. I suppose we shall just see. The irony, the wonders of modern techology also bring with it the evil dark side.
2
Key moment....the squirming Mark Zuckerberg did when trying to avoid the question regarding telling the world what hotel he stayed in the night before or who he sent messages to in the last week, told the entire story. He wants his privacy but yours is fair game. How “fakebook” is that?
10
It's only fair game if you allow it to be shared. I don't even use facebook and I seem to know how it works better than most who do.
4
I watched a significant amount of the Facebook hearing on Tuesday. During that time, only one senator, Mr. Hatch, made the point that Facebook is free. Every senator should have made this point so that users would know they are in no position to make demands of Facebook.
Many senators instead, badgered Mr. Zuckerberg with questions seeking "yes" and "no" answers. Mr. Zuckerberg is wealthy, and perhaps he should have walked out of the hearing and pulled the plug on Facebook.
4
I was a teacher, and I had kids like Zukerberg who were all promises about the future, but who rarely completed their homework. They were always remorseful for their lack of work. They were always apologetic. They always promised to do better. They always blamed everyone else for their lack of work. I'll give him a D+ at best.
24
People complaining about facebook? If they didn't put they' re lives on facebook, facebook couldn't publicize them. Its they're responsibility, not facebooks
7
I sent a message to FB a couple years ago telling them that I had noticed many nonexistent profiles using scripted messages about political events. I also told them that the profiles seemed to be paid trolls from another country because I noticed there was a language barrier and many used the same responses. I even started keeping a list of people who I was convinced were paid trolls. I never even got a response from Facebook. Don’t let them make you believe that they didn’t know this was going on.
46
It was also near this time that my number of followers dropped by about 500 people over the course of a few minutes.
Agreed. I'm pretty sure a large portion of the 'like' campaigns I've ran for brand pages have had fake accounts.
Why would you think they would respond to you....? LOL They do review complaints and flagged posts....they certainly aren't going to reach out to the sender of each.
I've seen this hearing referred to as a "grilling" of Zuckerberg. The only way he gets any grilling by these guys is if they're hosting a barbecue later on. The powerful do not eat their own. This is just another dog-and-pony show to convince the average chump that he's living in a democracy. Alas, he's not.
22
Jajajaja. Agreed. I am not from the US, but heard a portion of the hearing and did not understand fully the purpose, specially when other matters like diversity were being discussed and commitments were being "demanded". It seems to me that Facebook is being used as a Scapegoat. The show must continue and politicians are failing to deliver across the world!!! When I was younger, I thought that this was only a problem of my country, but now I realize that this is happening everywhere.
2
Can there be a standard USERS AGREEMENT?
I mean, one we have a STANDARD UNDERSTANDING.
One with plain & few terms?
Am I a simpleton, or an imbecile? Do I have a choice?
Do I own my computer, like I own my car.
I buy a part. I might have two cars.
Maybe I move that part to my other car.
Do I have to agree to NOT DO THAT when I buy a car part?
That's what it's like with computer software?
Who's the simpleton & who's the imbecile?
ANS: They are both US! Stop the INSANITY...make it SIMPLE.
9
"“When you say pipes, you mean?” Mr. Wicker asked." Does Mississippi have internet?
7
Throughout the Zuckerberg comments there are numerous variations of "we are looking into.." This is an implied future tense.
At no time did one get a sense that FB has been seriously trying for some months/years to correct the several problems and abuses the moment these have been brought to its attention. One might guess the desire to increase profits was too strong. In the lab, sometimes the simple solution, to avoid the continuing problems in working a contaminated strain, is a complete sterilization and starting all over.
If a better alternative can be created, current users will abandon FB . FB itself might be able to do this and if not, at the least it was an interesting experiment that revealed some aspects of our social behaviors.
6
I don’t know how many times Zuckerberg said “we don’t own our user’s data” and got away with it, when he should have been asked how he justified trafficking our data to bad actors for misuse in our elections. If they truly wanted to ask Zuckerberg hard questions and get to to the truth, committee members would have had tech workers with a clear understanding of the issues ask him difficult questions. European regulators see the problems posed by the tech sector clearly, and have adopted sensible regulations that protect their citizens privacy. We worry that we’ll “stifle innovation”... It’s no wonder that Facebook’s lobbyists and attorneys have run rings around our elected officials for years, and will continue to do so.
20
How about Orrin Hatch's Trump-supporting angle and deregulation argument that any outcomes brought about by the manipulation and abuse of Facebook data is all the fault of Facebook Users because they don't pay a user fee.
Hatch is trying to plant a seed that if people don't pay directly, they should expect to pay in some other way. Ergo Facebook -- generously funded by ads -- doesn't need regulation . . . it was The People's fault for letting themselves be manipulated. Further, they also thus chose to be manipulated.
This is the vision of the GOP.
Corporations are people, people are numbers.
Welcome to the Machine.
17
What to watch for? Nothing. I feel numb by watching democrats even praising Zuckerberg and his company. And if that's the democrats who lost the election in part because of Facebook, imagine the glee of the Republicans cause we all know nothing is going to change. Money and lobbyists already did their work. Do something better with your time, walk with a friend, exercise read a book.
5
I’m noting the extraordinary hoo-ha around Zuckerberg, the person. The guy I saw for the first time yesterday looked to me like a kid. Smart, successful, a bit smug but still a kid - in this case a kid trying to explain to his parents the dented fender and the empty in the back seat. He’s over his head in a room populated by adults. He gets too much deference.
6
Maybe he was extra smug because those "adults" didn't bother doing any research on the very basics of how Facebook (or technology in general) works. To go with your metaphor, their questions were equivalent to asking, "what is beer?" and "what's the purpose of fenders?".
7
Agree completely about the senators’ questions. The quality of any subsequent regulation will be lessened if it’s based only on the extent of their knowledge. However their naivete does have the advantage of being able to ask very fundamental questions which can sometimes lead to constructive, although embarrassing, whoopses for the Zuckerbergs of the world.
EXACTLY Steve! He was surrounded by idiots. I could hardly keep a straight face listening to some of the dawdling congresspeople trying to ask a coherent question...
Zuckerberg aced his 'test'. Paid advisors got him ready. A stylist fixed him up with a snappy suit (and chucked the hoody). It's nice that he's taking personal "responsibility".
But until he and Ms Sandberg 'lean in' to altering the Facebook business model. AND Congress grows a spine and passes laws holding Companies (and their leaders) accountable for massive data breaches, hacks and such. It's only cheap, self serving talk.
Do I get a "LIKE"
46
You've got mine. May I share this on Facebook?
3
YES! You get a "LIKE" Howard Beale II. The whole hearing is a shame, there are no laws against what F'book has done / does. What's bad for consumer/privacy protection is great for F'book.
Mr Zuckerberg, as a matter of National Security and following the rules of Twitter, please, PLEASE, discuss with Congress today the President's use of your platform for bullying, and suspend Trump's account. He's threatened the world this morning before he probably had his 1st Diet Coke. My request is sincere.
11
In 2013, the Washington Post and The Guardian revealed that the NSA has backdoor access to all major Silicon Valley social media firms, including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple – all through the notorious PRISM program which began in 2007 under the Protect America Act. PRISM’s existence was leaked by Edward Snowden before he entered into ongoing asylum in Moscow. Microsoft was the first company to join the PRISM program.
10
This whole thing is a joke. The fact is, Facebook is not beholden to anyone except its shareholders. When users signed up for Facebook, it was made implicitly clear that any content posted on the website, including photos, belonged to Facebook and was Facebook' property. When I say this was clear, I mean crystal clear. I remember reading that in the "fine print" and thinking, "um, I'm not sure I like that." I signed up anyway. I knew what I was getting into. As for the fake Russian news and propaganda? If it's paid for, then so what? Facebook is a for profit corporation. It is not their job to parse the information and decide what is fake or not. It promoted content (and says as much on the links). All perfectly legal. It is up to us not to be ignorant and recognize that the news is fake. If posts circulated on FB during the election claimed that Hillary Clinton owned a child sex ring, (yes, I actually saw something like this) then it's up to me to recognize they are fake. And if I am dumb enough to believe them, well, then, that is not Face Book's fault or problem. I'm the idiot.
79
Facebook is beholden to the country that lets it operate on the Internet that this country created with taxpayer dollars. Zuckerberg is beholden to the country that gave him the intellectual freedom to develop such a platform in the first place. As a US citizen, he does have a civic responsibility not to help undermine his country and our democracy.
The United States does not let money flow freely to shareholders willy nilly. Commerce is regulated, because we've seen what happens when it isn't. Monopolies and their masters gain way too much power.
Zuckerberg is a publisher who does not follow ethical standards of journalism (you can look them up). He publishes whatever he wants. He sells ads to readers and he sells readers to ad-makers/bad actors/anybody. He fails to make it simple for his readers/users to prevent him from selling every datum they provide to anyone who wants to buy it.
Aggregated data is disaggregated all the time. I click on an L.L. Bean item for sale and the same picture shows up on the NYTimes website, though I didn't want to "share" with a different vendor.
Who'll buy private info about Zuckerberg & Family? What kinds of cereal do they like? What kind of shoes and personal hygiene products do they buy? How much do they spend on groceries each week? What do they pay their housekeeper? What's his kids' birthdates? Drs.' names? Does he want this information public? Does he want his kids to use Facebook? Congress should ask.
3
amen
It's hard not not agree with you're conclusion, especially if you feel Facebook has no responsibility for its content - even more so it's paid content.
As a society, most feel the days of caveat emptor are long gone, and rightfully so. There are principles and values that deserve more protection than the unfettered pursuit of profit... I guess at least for some of us.
After watching the video summary of Zuckerberg's testimony, I am more encouraged and positive about the prospects for democracy and America. This shows very smart, intelligent, articulate people arguing openly about important issues concerning privacy, regulation of technology, and the roles of private corporations and government. Congress, private capitalism, and the press at their best. There's hope for us yet.
12
I have to say - "fine print" is called that because it is too small to read. When something is buried in the fine print, it is Buried. Just as Facebook has policies, I have policies. My policy is that if I do not know I am agreeing to something, I am not agreeing to it. If the screen says "check this or you cannot proceed," that is what I read and understand. To say I've agreed to things I cannot read is nonsense.
17
Yes, but Facebook's fine print also lied because they sold off data and lost control of it.
5
What to watch for? More humiliation of elected officials.
11
After this first hearing it seems that the monopoly of facebook needs competition and well regulated laws which should be in place already for a long time.
It's also obvious that Congress was sleeping in the last 10 years while facebook got bigger and bigger.
My conclusion is that we are where we are because of the lack of oversight by the Congress and House. It's not just Zuckerbergs fault.
48
It's amazing how little our lawmakers seem to know about technology. Even basic concepts - the business model of free content providers (targeted ads) or the difference between an ISP and a website - are seemingly lost to them.
Their ignorance is dangerous and can lead to absurd policies. You can't properly regulate what you don't understand.
165
Amen.
5
True. Tho they're Congress and Facebook has to deal with them. Though Zuch is a smart guy, he seems woefully unprepared to deal with the consequences of his company's actions or fully appreciate the gravity of them in the larger context. Anti-trust issues are common concerns among regulators for any industry and the fact that Zuck couldn't give a straight answer is telling. FB needs a CEO who has the foresight to tackle these issues.
Substitute "personal information" with "bank account" and see what happens.
2
Because our lawmakers shouldn't be required to know everything under the sun, I would suggest that the House and Senate committee members should have their staff brief them (better?) on Facebook technology. Also, in advance of the hearings, Zuckerberg & Co. could have provided a public service by submitting documentation to explain the business models, concepts, etc.
I found the procedure underwhelming. There was an interesting piece in The Guardian (UK) today which made sense of it allhttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/11/mark-zuckerbergs-f...
1
Facebook and Google are two of the world's biggest media companies, but they lack editors, and editorial direction and imperative for content. It's as though our nation's newspapers (online and print) and TV stations dedicated portions of every section, including the home / front page to propagandists and whoever shows up with the most clicks. With no vetting for accuracy or consideration of potential harm.
I doubt the "algorithms" Zuckerberg kept advocating will do the job. This isn't just about privacy, it's about responsibility for preserving truth and democracy.
23
It’s a much more complex relationship that that. Major news media companies get most of their online traffic, and develop new reader and ad revenues through referrals of the content from google and facebook.
1
I wish that facebook would go away. It's pretty useless unless you need to hook up with someone you knew when you were 8.
56
But...but...my mom is on facebook!
2