Zuckerberg News ......

[GURPS]

"Would you be comfortable sharing with us the name of the hotel you stayed in last night?" Durbin asked during an intense and closely-watched hearing about online digital privacy, and Facebook's role in what happens to personal information once users join the platform.

Zuckerberg paused for a full eight seconds, chuckled, grimaced, and ultimately demurred.

"Um, uh, no," he said.

And "if you've messaged anybody this week would you share with us the names of the people you've messaged?" the Illinois Democrat persisted.

Again, a similar unwillingness to answer.

Perhaps more than any other senator during five hours of questioning, Durbin's everyman tactic put a finger on the crux of the issue surrounding Facebook's failure to maintain control of the private information of tens of millions of users, amid a scandal over the gathering of personal data used to target political advertising and messaging during the 2016 presidential race.

"I think that might be what this is all about," said Durbin, 40 years Zuckerberg's senior.


'Um, uh, no': Zuckerberg not keen to reveal own personal info

 

[GURPS]

The proximate cause is the Cambridge Analytica controversy. In violation of Facebook’s rules, the Trump-linked political consultancy schemed to get access to the data of 87 million users. This has made Facebook a scapegoat for Trump’s victory on par with the Russians and James Comey (at least before the FBI director got fired and became a Trump adversary).

In 2012, Barack Obama’s re-election campaign did a less-underhanded version of the same thing as Cambridge. The great chronicler of the Obama digital operation, Sasha Issenberg, wrote of how its “ ‘targeted sharing’ protocols mined an Obama backer’s Facebook network in search of friends the campaign wanted to register, mobilize, or persuade.”

No scandal ensued — rather, the Obama digital mavens were hailed as geniuses who changed campaigning forever.

It’s not Zuckerberg’s fault that he has suddenly been deemed on the wrong side of history, but the Cambridge Analytica blow-up is bringing a useful spotlight on the most sanctimoniously self-regarding large company in America.

Facebook can’t bear to admit that it has garnered the largest collection of data known to man to sell ads against and line the pockets of its founder and investors.

It’s this pose that makes him and other Facebook officials sound so shifty. In a rocky interview with Savannah Guthrie of “The Today Show” last week, Sheryl Sandberg was asked what product Facebook sells. “We’re selling the opportunity to connect with people,” she said according to The Washington Post, before catching herself, “but it’s not for sale.”


Facebook has always been one big swindle

 

[GURPS]

Zuckerberg Struggles to Answer Sasse’s Plea to Define Hate Speech; ‘This Is a Really Hard Question’



Sasse then asked the key question:

You may decide or Facebook may decide it needs to police a whole bunch of speech that I think America might be better off by not having policed by one company that has a really large and powerful platform. Can you define hate speech?​

Despite the fact that Zuckerberg repeatedly mentioned how he hopes social media companies like his will rely on Artificial Intelligence (AI) to clear out hate speech, he couldn’t define what hate speech is:

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, I think that this is a really hard question and I think it’s one of the reasons we struggle with it. There are certain definitions that — that we — that we have around, you know, calling for violence or —

SASSE: Let's just agree on that.

ZUCKERBERG: — yeah.​

The Nebraska Republican continued to hammer home this danger about how scores of younger Americans are embracing the erosion of the First Amendment and censoring pro-lifers:

You use language of safety and protection earlier. We see this happening on college campuses all across the county. It's dangerous. 40 percent of Americans under age 35 tell pollsters they think the First Amendment is dangerous because you might use your freedom to say something that hurts somebody else’s feelings. Guess what? There are some really passionately held views about the abortion issue on this panel today. Can you imagine a world where you might decide that pro-lifers are prohibited from speaking about their abortion views on content — on your platform? ​

Zuckerberg shot back that “I certainly would not want that to be the case” but Sasse countered: “But it might be really unsettling to people who have had an abortion to have an open debate about that? Wouldn’t it?”

 

[GURPS]

MONTAGE: Zuckerberg Doesn’t Know — His ‘Team’ Will ‘Follow Up’


Over and over again, Zuckerberg awkwardly informed the committees that he didn’t know the answer to their question, wasn’t “aware” of what they were referencing or needed his “team” to follow up with them later.

“If you’d like I can have my team follow up with you after this,” was a common response from the tech billionaire.

“I can certainly have my team get back to you on any specifics there that I don’t know sitting here today,” he told Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell, for example.

Zuckerberg was especially stumped when Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz grilled him about political censorship on Facebook and asked if any left-leaning pages had ever been censored.

 

[Kyle]

Zuckerberg was especially stumped when Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz grilled him about political censorship on Facebook and asked if any left-leaning pages had ever been censored.

That's understandable... He was trying to remember if there ever was one.

 

[GURPS]

That's understandable... He was trying to remember if there ever was one.

 

[GURPS]

Mark Zuckerberg’s Dorm-Room Defense in Congress


Despite this evident preparation, Zuckerberg did not have much in the way of answers. Two Senate committees wanted to know how Zuckerberg had allowed the data of tens of millions Americans to be misused—an oversight that may have tilted the outcome of a Presidential election—and go unaddressed for years. They wanted to know how Zuckerberg squared his claim that Facebook’s user data belongs to the user with the methods his company uses to extract forty billion dollars each year from that trove. Zuckerberg exercises an unprecedented degree of control over the personal information of Facebook’s two billion users, and senators wanted to know if these vassals were in good hands.

“Why should we let you self-regulate?” Senator Lindsey Graham demanded. A few moments before, he’d asked: “You don’t think you have a monopoly?” Zuckerberg parried, “It certainly doesn’t feel like that to me.” Not for the first time, he said that he was personally sorry. He repeatedly referred to Facebook’s beginnings in his Harvard dorm room, as though the company’s modest origins could justify anything that might have gone catastrophically wrong in the meantime.

Asked repeatedly about the eighty-seven million people affected by the Cambridge Analytica data grab, Zuckerberg said he himself did not know where those users were located. He said that Facebook could not yet verify the identity of firms running political ads. “We’re working on that now,” he said. He dismissed the notion that Facebook accesses users’ phone audio as “a conspiracy theory” before clarifying that it was not being used “for ads.” He refused to say whether Facebook tracks individual devices without user contact. He wouldn’t say whether all users, or even children, should have to actively consent, or “opt in,” before their data is shared with outside firms. Nor would he say whether Facebook tracks users’ online activity after they log off.

 

[GURPS]

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told Zuckerberg that "a great many Americans" are "deeply concerned that Facebook and other tech companies are engaged in a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship." Cruz then ticked off a list of conservative content that he claimed had been "suppressed" by Facebook, "including stories about [2012 GOP presidential candidate] Mitt Romney [and] stories about the Lois Lerner IRS scandal."

"In addition to that, Facebook has initially shut down the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day page ... has blocked over two dozen Catholic pages, and most recently blocked Trump supporters Diamond and Silk’s page – with 1.2 million Facebook followers -- after determining their content and brand were 'unsafe to the community.'

"To a great many Americans, that appears to be a pervasive pattern of political bias. Do you agree with that assessment?" Cruz asked.

In response, Zuckerberg noted that Cruz had raised "a fair concern" and noted that the company is based in Silicon Valley, which he described as "an extremely left-leaning place."

Cruz then asked if Zuckerberg knew whether Facebook had removed content from Planned Parenthood, MoveOn.org, or "any Democratic candidate for office." To each question, Zuckerberg responded that he was not aware of any such content.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...eral-groups-after-conservative-targeting.html

 

[GURPS]

WATCH: Cruz Targets Facebook For Alleged Political Bias Against Conservatives. Zuckerberg: That's A Fair Question.



Cruz: Let me ask you this question: Are you aware of any ad or page that has been taken down from Planned Parenthood?

Zuckerberg: Senator, I’m not, but let me just finish.

Cruz: How about MoveOn.org?

Zuckerberg: Sorry?

Cruz: How about MoveOn.org?

Zuckerberg: I’m not specifically aware of those.

Cruz: How about any Democratic candidate for office?

Zuckerberg: I’m not specifically aware, I’m not sure.

Cruz: In your testimony you say that you have fifteen to twenty-thousand people working on security and content review. Do you know the political orientation of those fifteen to twenty-thousand people engaged in content review?

Zuckerberg: No, Senator, we do not generally ask people their political orientation when joining the company.

Cruz: So as CEO, have you ever made hiring or firing decisions based on political positions or what candidates they support?

Zuckerberg: No.

Cruz: Why was Palmer Luckey fired?

Zuckerberg: That is a specific personnel matter that seems like it would be inappropriate to speak to here.

Cruz: You just made a specific representation that you didn’t make decisions based on political views. Was that accurate?

Zuckerberg: Well, I can commit that that was not because of a political view.

Cruz: Do you know of those fifteen to twenty-thousand people engaged in content review, how may if any, have ever supported financially a Republican candidate for office?

Zuckerberg: Senator, I do not know that.

Cruz: Your testimony says, “It is not enough that we just connect people, we have to make sure those connections are positive.” It says, “We have to make sure that people aren’t using their voice to hurt people or spread misinformation. We have a responsibility not just to build tools, to make sure those tools are used for good.” Mr. Zuckerberg, do you feel it’s your responsibility to assess users, whether they are “good and positive” connections or ones that those fifteen to twenty-thousand people deem “unacceptable” or “deplorable"?

Zuckerberg: Senator, you’re asking about me personally? Senator, I think there are a number of things that we would all agree are clearly bad: foreign interference in our elections; terrorism; self-harm, those are things—

Cruz: I’m talking about censorship.

 

[GURPS]

When it was his turn to question Zuckerberg, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) asked, "We’ve been told that platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and the like are neutral platforms, and the people who own and run them for profit … bore no responsibility for the content. Do you agree now that Facebook and other social media platforms are not neutral platforms but bear some responsibility for the content?"

"I agree that we’re responsible for the content," Zuckerberg responded.

Shapiro highlighted the moment in an article and tweeted it out. "Congratulations, Zuckerberg. You’re now a publisher and not a platform, and subject to legal liability that attaches," wrote Shapiro. "Good luck."



https://www.dailywire.com/news/29307/shapiro-tweets-about-zuckerbergs-testimony-james-barrett

 

[Toxick]

"I agree that we’re responsible for the content," Zuckerberg responded.

Facebook's legal team:

 

[Kyle]

 

[Bonehead]

Zukie is in deep doo doo.

 

[littlelady]

Zukie is in deep doo doo.

I hope so. It would be nice to see twitter ceo, Dorsey, in deep doo doo, too; along with some others.

 

[Starman]

I hope so. It would be nice to see twitter ceo, Dorsey, in deep doo doo, too; along with some others.

Based on what? Be specific.

 

[littlelady]

Based on what? Be specific.

Here you go. Pick and choose as you please.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=twitt...-34&sk=&cvid=CCE759E0E5714192A3E4D6C34D69B829

Another misuse of social media being used for political purposes.

 

[Starman]

Here you go. Pick and choose as you please.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=twitt...-34&sk=&cvid=CCE759E0E5714192A3E4D6C34D69B829

Another misuse of social media being used for political purposes.

Is any of that stuff a crime?

 

[littlelady]

Is any of that stuff a crime?

No, I am not saying it is a crime, but social media sites that are meddling, extracting, censoring, etc. is wrong. The brainwashing is out of control. These sites were meant to be social, not politically biased. The whole idea was supposed to be fun; but not fun anymore. And, yes, Trump should stop twittering. It makes him look stupid. As, I have said many times here, this forum is the only social media I have ever participated in. To the others, I say no thank you.

 

[Starman]

No, I am not saying it is a crime, but social media sites that are meddling, extracting, censoring, etc. is wrong. The brainwashing is out of control. These sites were meant to be social, not politically biased. The whole idea was supposed to be fun; but not fun anymore. And, yes, Trump should stop twittering. It makes him look stupid. As, I have said many times here, this forum is the only social media I have ever participated in. To the others, I say no thank you.

I understand your point of view, but why shouldn't these social sites run their business as they see fit? It's not compulsory to use any of them. These sites were designed to return maximum value to the shareholders. Period, end of discussion.

No victim, no crime, we understand this. With that said, what kind of "deep doo doo" do you envisage? Cultural outrage/backlash? Good Luck!

 

[littlelady]

I understand your point of view, but why shouldn't these social sites run their business as they see fit? It's not compulsory to use any of them. These sites were designed to return maximum value to the shareholders. Period, end of discussion.

No victim, no crime, we understand this. With that said, what kind of "deep doo doo" do you envisage? Cultural outrage/backlash? Good Luck!

Yes, I am hoping for outrage and backlash, but, sadly, that won’t happen because too many lobotomies have been performed. Good luck to you, too, because our beloved Country is, also, in deep doo doo.