Got to love when Feinstein got the timeline and facts wrong in Cambridge.
Hatch asks Zuckerberg “ How do you sustain a business model in which users don’t pay for your service?”
Zuckerberg “Senator we run ads”
Senator Cruz asked the best question “Does Facebook consider itself a neutral public forum?”
Another is Alfonzo Rachel he was censored for awhile as well.
I'm certainly not shocked PaulZ is a huge fan of their running a private company so. Fits his MO to a tee.....
Personally, they can run it any way they wish. But need to be publicly called out on their knowing lies and deceitful claims. Exposed as to who they really are. Over and over..... As all liars should be.......
I asked the same question on FB. It’s amazing how many people are uniformed or flat don’t care about what’s going on with FB.
From what I saw, to a large extent those asking the questions were ignorant. If I were Zuckerberg, I would have had a hard time not responding to some of those questions with "Are you serious, did you really just ask that?"
I don't happen to like Zuckerberg and I certainly don't agree with his liberal politics, but I don't think he performed poorly. He was respectful, to the point, and for the most part I felt he was honest. I think he was guarded and I don't think he offered anything he didn't have to, but why would he? This wasn't a social visit in any way shape or form. The piranhas (on both sides) asking the questions were looking for blood and Zuckerberg is smart enough to know that every word he said can and will be used against him.
I really struggle with the notion that FB, a private entity, has to be fair when it comes to what content they allow and what content they suppress. Some of the same people that are demanding that fairness are the same people that adamantly reject the notion that a baker must bake a cake for a gay wedding. Other than scale, it really is no different.
At the end of the day, if people don't like FB's policies, they can start their own platform or they can just not join. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to reveal every aspect of their lives to the entire world.
“Mr. Zuckerberg, a magazine i recently opened came with a floppy disk offering me 30 free hours of something called America On-Line. Is that the same as Facebook?” pic.twitter.com/U7pqpUhEhQ— Dave Itzkoff (@ditzkoff) April 10, 2018
“Mr. Zuckerberg, I’ve been meaning to ask you this question. How do I add the circle around the “a” to type an email address?” pic.twitter.com/hpibr0wlXF— sreekar (@sreekyshooter) April 10, 2018
Let's be honest. The hypocrisy is alive and well on both sides of this one.
Rep Billy Long told Zuckerberg “congress does 1 of two things either we do nothing or we overreact. We are about to overreact.”
FB is ran by lefties and will be slanted in what they control...news flash.
Business opputunity for someone, create a Fox News type of competitor for FB and Twitter.
Spike Bull 's Link
Their questioning of Zuckerberg exposed the stupidity of Congress again. If you fail to be successful at anything in life, you can always become a politician.
Also, I don’t care for Zuckerberg. But portraying him as a child sitting in a high chair, is laughable. He was the smartest person in the room, and has made several more billion $, while testifying. Congress could learn from him on how to run a business or country successfully.
I have been on FB since it pretty much started. I don’t have any concerns about FB having my data. The data breech was threw an outside app in FB. I wasn’t part of it so my data wasn’t shared. I also have an Instagram account, Twitter account and snap chat. My teenage daughter has been a big influence on my social media presence.
I am well aware of how smart Zuckerberg is. I am also aware of how much money he gives away.
The high chair meme is actually more of a joke on Congress then Zuckerberg. The old duffers of Congress treating Zuckerberg like a young kid. I don’t agree with the censorship but it’s his site so for now it’s his rules.
What they MAY have some legal and ethical issues with is allowing third parties unfettered access to personal information. After 2012 I believe they were forced to make changes to their "membership" agreement to better protect users of the platform. In reality they pretty much just blew that off and continued to go on about their very profitable business...... THAT is what this was supposed to be about. But you're not going to get too many high and tight fastballs thrown at you from the very people you donate a good deal of money to for their campaigns......
The America hating Soros-Democrats are finally being called out, even the left wont be able to ignore or hide who they truly are from themselves much longer. We already know them, it is they themselves who need to learn their own ugly truth.
So long as these hearings, and/or anything else, brings that to light I will applaud that effort regardless of who executes it.
We continue to walk along a very dangerous path to a corporatist government. That needs serious scrutiny and reining in the scope and power of such tech giants as FB, Amazon, and Google may be necessary.
This is true for all small business, government regulations are small business killers.
I think Rep Long’s comment about “congress does two things. Either they do nothing or they over react.” I can see them over reacting like usual.
If I don't like the way FB works, I can choose to not participate. The only information they have about me is what I willingly chose to share. The last thing I want (or need) is for the government, Republicans or Democrats, to impose additional regulations on any aspect of my life.
Regulations cut both ways. It just surprises me how those that claim to be conservatives seem more than willing to have the heavy hand of government make things fair.
Think about some of the far right "news" sites that certain posters love to post links to here on the CF. I wonder how those posters would feel if the feds started regulating their content? Careful what you wish for. Today it's Facebook, tomorrow it might be Freedom Outpost, Bowsite or creepingsharia.com.
So has Apple. Would you like to see them shut down too?
Cell phones are just a tool to access sites like FB. That said, I could easily live without my cell phone, too. Technology doesn't always improve quality of life, IMO.
Someone took a photo of Zuckerbergs notes while he was sitting in front of congress. He was prepared to call out Apple as well as amazon if he needed to.
Come on Matt, you know better than that. Without smart phones, most social media platforms, including and especially Facebook, would be completely irrelevant for most kids. It was, and continues to be the smart phone that has caused the boom in social media of all kinds. It's only fossils like us that access the internet via a computer.
So, would you like Apple shut down also?
I'm not sure why you insist on comparing Apple to FB. Smart phones serve far more purposes than just internet access. So, no, I wouldn't want Apple shut down.
Having said that, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they eliminated internet access from cell phones.
That's simple. Because you said "FB has contributed to a generation of socially misfit young people. I'd love to see it shut down."
I'm simply saying that comparatively, the smart phone (Apple being the leader in that arena) has contributed much more to what you describe than Facebook ever has or ever will. So surely, it would only make sense that you'd love to see that shut down too.
Besides, ask anyone under the age of 25 and they will tell you that Facebook is for old fogies like us. They use Snapchat, Instagram, and to a lesser extent Twitter...and the smartphone is what makes them all possible.
Probably about as silly as I found your insinuation that Facebook is somehow responsible for young people that are “social misfits,” and how liberals think assault rifles are responsible for mass shootings.
If anything, your argument is akin to the liberal side of the gun debate. You are blaming the tool (smart phones) rather that the root cause of the behavior.
Social media sites have created a impersonal fantasy land in which the users identity and sense of self-worth is defined by how many likes, or friends, or followers, or retweets they get. The content is often cherry-picked "look at me" moments that portray a skewed picture of reality, or it's simply choreographed make believe. It's the social equivalent of fake news.
You may disagree, and I'm fine with that, but I think the world was as better place without social media.
That's what our parents said about rock and roll.
Rap, on the other hand, is the devil's music.
The good news is I know a great deal of what she is up to the majority of time. The bad news is I know what she is up to without even talking to her.