Anyone watching the Zuckerberg Senate interview?

[vi edit]

This is painful. It's hard for me to watch a bunch of grumpy ass old fossils scream and clamor for privacy and transparency while at the same time they are hot on the heels of passing legislation that prevents just that.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...es-to-repeal-obama-era-internet-privacy-rules

Zuckerberg probably walks away from this going "What the hell did I just sit through?"

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I’d watch if the people asking questions had any idea what they were taking about. But.....

 

[vi edit]

Now when you say pipes? Oh god. Cookies? Are these chocolate chip. Will I get ads for snickerdooldles if I accept cookies?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I can't be bothered. I'd probably want to toss a shoe at all parties involved.

 

[vi edit]

Remember that Comey hearing where McCain was clearly coo coo for coco puffs? This is like several hours of it shared across a dozen old white dudes trying to ramble their way through some myopic point.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I can't be bothered. I'd probably want to toss a shoe at all parties involved.

That. A bunch of corrupt old lying sacks of shit interviewing a corrupt younger lying sack of shit. What sort of brain damage is required to sit through that circus? You have a better chance of hearing something true, interesting and/or important in a Trump tweet.

 

[JSt0rm]

A bunch of senators reading the wiki page on Facebook.

 

[HomerJS]

Tuned in for a few minutes. Lindsay Graham criticizing Z for an internal memo where someone wrote growth in Facebook can result in someones death. Z claims it was an internal memo meant to invoke discussion and Z noted his disagreement. Graham blamed Z for his people not understanding his people should have already known Z would have objected to the memo.

If I recall didn't Trump say if he shot someone in the street his people wouldn't care? I don't think Graham had the standing to even ask his question being a Trump supporter

 

[FIVR]

He's so robotic and gross. I always feel like any second a forked tongue will dart out to wipe his unblinking eyeballs.


The hearing makes sense, I guess. FB is an evil company so I totally get why Orrin Hatch loves it.

 

[FIVR]

He had a real hard time answering that "what are your biggest competitors" question. He tried to say Apple but Graham didn't understand that so he said "we have lots" and then finally settled on instagram which FB owns and is not a competitor.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

This is painful. It's hard for me to watch a bunch of grumpy ass old fossils scream and clamor for privacy and transparency while at the same time they are hot on the heels of passing legislation that prevents just that.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...es-to-repeal-obama-era-internet-privacy-rules

Zuckerberg probably walks away from this going "What the hell did I just sit through?"

I’m not a huge Zuckerberg fan, I do believe less data needs to be collected.
I did cring when that Senator asked who’s your competition?
Zuck says not one but many
Old guy: Ok who
We’ll the average person uses 8 different apps to communicate
Old guy: well if I buy a ford and I don’t like it I can buy a Chevy
Zuck just doesn’t know what to say because the question is so dumb

 

[tweaker2]

It's showtime, face time and a really disingenuous way for our politicians to "show how they care" for their constituents. Now, I don't know who among those legislators that are grilling him are truly concerned of the issue being raised at this hearing and who among them are only in it for personal fame and glory but I think the only thing Zuckerburg did "wrong" was he didn't follow the usual route that most other big corporations follow and that is to grease enough palms and buy enough influence up on the Hill to have at his disposal those critically important legislators who are corrupt enough to be bought off and then have the juice and financial motivation to squash a run-up to these kinds of hearings right from the get-go.

 

[vi edit]

The reality is that there *isn't* significant rival to Facebook anymore. Myspace is dead (or may as well be). Google+ never took off. Reddit isn't remotely the same. Same goes for Twitter, a very different product.

 

[JSt0rm]

The reality is that there *isn't* significant rival to Facebook anymore. Myspace is dead (or may as well be). Google+ never took off. Reddit isn't remotely the same. Same goes for Twitter, a very different product.

It’s almost as if all the internet 2.0 apps are different.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The reality is that there *isn't* significant rival to Facebook anymore. Myspace is dead (or may as well be). Google+ never took off. Reddit isn't remotely the same. Same goes for Twitter, a very different product.

Agreed but it’s more than thathow many messaging options, how many photo posting options and it’s not a typical anti trust because Facebook doesn’t bill for regular use.
Yes put some restrictions on ads and boosted posts
Yes have some quicker process to shut down racist or propaganda accounts
The issue is about privacy and data handling it’s not about over billing

 

[vi edit]

Durbin storms out of the corner with a couple pretty poignant jabs.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Durbin storms out of the corner with a couple pretty poignant jabs.

Poignant jabs?

 

[Zorba]

I’m not a huge Zuckerberg fan, I do believe less data needs to be collected.
I did cring when that Senator asked who’s your competition?
Zuck says not one but many
Old guy: Ok who
We’ll the average person uses 8 different apps to communicate
Old guy: well if I buy a ford and I don’t like it I can buy a Chevy
Zuck just doesn’t know what to say because the question is so dumb

So online Monopolies are fine?

 

[vi edit]

Poignant jabs?

Yeah, first couple words from Durbin to Zuck- "Mr. Zuckerberg, would mind sharing with us the hotel you stayed at last night?"

Pans to Zuck who is shocked and just sitting there. Zuck finally responds, "No I don't want to share where I stayed".

There were few more follow ups by Durbin that escape me and he was starting to dog the privacy issue before my feed cut off.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So online Monopolies are fine?

I’m not going down that rabbit hole. Listen to the context of the discussion they had.

 

[JSt0rm]

ted cruz is bringing freedumb to z

 

[Gryz]

Old guy: well if I buy a ford and I don’t like it I can buy a Chevy
Zuck just doesn’t know what to say because the question is so dumb

Actually the old guys does have a point.

In the previous millennium people worked to develop protocols. With a few apps on tops. Email, messaging, file transfer, terminal emulation. Most of those protocols were proprietary. IBM's SNA, Decnet phase-4, Appletalk, Novell's Netware, Banyan Vines, etc. You could chose between them. But they wouldn't cooperate. AppleTalk machines would never talk Novell machines, etc. Closed technology. Some company was in charge of a specific protocol, a specific technology.

Then IP won. The TCP/IP protocol suite, as it called. Nobody is in charge of IP, nobody owns IP. Protocols on top of IP, like email (SMTP, RFC822, POP, iMAP), FTP, or later HTTP made it so that different machines made by different vendors, with different OSes, could talk to each other. Openness was a goal. Openness helped.

Then fuckers came. Like Facebook. Like Twitter, like Whatsapp, etc. Building techology on top of open protocols (IP, HTTP). But in fact those protocols and applications are closed. Someone is in charge. Someone is the boss. Someone owns that technology. The exact opposite of what the Internet is about. No open communication.

That old man's question is very valid.
What do you do if you want a particular service, but don't want to use Facebook ?
Google's facebook ? Nobody is on it. Hyves ? What ?

I don't do Facebook.
But I do Whatsapp. I was forced to by my collegues. I didn't want Whatsapp on my phone. I rather had Telegram or something else. Preferably something that uses an open protocol. But I couldn't. Because I would have been alone on Telegram. There is no choice. You use Whatsapp, or you use nothing. At least in my country. I bet it's the same in the US.

It's a very valid question.
Facebook is a monopolist. What is the alternative ? The real answer is: none.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Yeah, first couple words from Durbin to Zuck- "Mr. Zuckerberg, would mind sharing with us the hotel you stayed at last night?"

Pans to Zuck who is shocked and just sitting there. Zuck finally responds, "No I don't want to share where I stayed".

There were few more follow ups by Durbin that escape me and he was starting to dog the privacy issue before my feed cut off.

Did the feed that defined the word "poignant" also cut off? Pointed jabs maybe? Even Mohammed Ali never described his jabs as poignant.

 

[Commodus]

Listened to Ted Cruz grandstanding and falsely claiming that Facebook has an anti-conservative bias, and it was just... ugh.

Zuckerberg was being as diplomatic as he could, but you could tell this was grating. Cruz doesn't want to admit that the reason Facebook has been more likely to ban conservative content is because modern conservative content is more likely to be false, abusive or both. No, Facebook isn't going to remove content from Planned Parenthood or Moveon.org, because they're not spinning outright lies or encouraging harassment.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Actually the old guys does have a point.

In the previous millennium people worked to develop protocols. With a few apps on tops. Email, messaging, file transfer, terminal emulation. Most of those protocols were proprietary. IBM's SNA, Decnet phase-4, Appletalk, Novell's Netware, Banyan Vines, etc. You could chose between them. But they wouldn't cooperate. AppleTalk machines would never talk Novell machines, etc. Closed technology. Some company was in charge of a specific protocol, a specific technology.

Then IP won. The TCP/IP protocol suite, as it called. Nobody is in charge of IP, nobody owns IP. Protocols on top of IP, like email (SMTP, RFC822, POP, iMAP), FTP, or later HTTP made it so that different machines made by different vendors, with different OSes, could talk to each other. Openness was a goal. Openness helped.

Then fuckers came. Like Facebook. Like Twitter, like Whatsapp, etc. Building techology on top of open protocols (IP, HTTP). But in fact those protocols and applications are closed. Someone is in charge. Someone is the boss. Someone owns that technology. The exact opposite of what the Internet is about. No open communication.

That old man's question is very valid.
What do you do if you want a particular service, but don't want to use Facebook ?
Google's facebook ? Nobody is on it. Hyves ? What ?

I don't do Facebook.
But I do Whatsapp. I was forced to by my collegues. I didn't want Whatsapp on my phone. I rather had Telegram or something else. Preferably something that uses an open protocol. But I couldn't. Because I would have been alone on Telegram. There is no choice. You use Whatsapp, or you use nothing. At least in my country. I bet it's the same in the US.

It's a very valid question.
Facebook is a monopolist. What is the alternative ? The real answer is: none.

Point taken but that did not appear to be the motive of the senators question
I can guarantee the senator has zero understanding of what you mentioned.
His question was more about should we break Facebook up under antitrust laws.
Which again is a valid discussion it’s just the how much does your service cost, buying different products questions sounded so uninformed.

Simply put a broken clock is right twice per day