Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Full Testimony Before U.S. Senate

[AtlBo]

Finished the 10 hours of videos last night. I there ANYTHING more wearying or painful than listening to 10 hours of Mark Zuckerberg about Facebook? I literally experienced all the symptoms of the flu as watched. When I turned the video off and closed the page, the symptoms left LOL...

The questions were good, but the issue is Microsoft and ethical programming standards...not the internet. It's secondary...

 

[yitworths]

Finished the 10 hours of videos last night. I there ANYTHING more wearying or painful than listening to 10 hours of Mark Zuckerberg about Facebook? I literally experienced all the symptoms of the flu as watched. When I turned the video off and closed the page, the symptoms left LOL...

The questions were good, but the issue is Microsoft and ethical programming standards...not the internet. It's secondary...

Man you are a brave guy. Ten hours long video,sigh...But...
Can you summarise that 10 hours long video in 10 short sentences in about 10 crazy minutes? As I don't have any 10dency to watch that long video.

 

[AtlBo]

Man you are a brave guy. Ten hours long video,sigh...But...
Can you summarise that 10 hours long video in 10 short sentences in about 10 crazy minutes? As I don't have any 10dency to watch that long video.

LOL I'll try yitworths. First it was 2 days so it was long and there were some short breaks to make it better I guess 2 each day for about 15 minutes per break. So here is my summary:

1. Tone- Congress was interested in what was happening and the questions were fair and on the issue. Some were very pointed and tested Zuckerberg, who held up well throughout. Obviously, FB had a strategy to stick with why FB was started and ZB delivered it in the most noble tone of "I wanted to help people connect" and that's what we still want to do. Zuckerberg answered but stuck to those defenses. To his credit he was real about FB's failures which must have helped him in the end.
2. Congress-Congress was fairly up to the minute on using FB and on basic internet issues. The questions were almost exclusively limited to FB specific issues. Nothing beyond FB except mentions of Cambridge Analytics. Zuckerberg explained FB's response after learning of the leak, and it was a decent answer in light of everything. The company responded pretty quickly. Broad cross section of questions and ZB answered them admitting FB needs to clean up its act. Questions were good but ZB too was good and consistent with his answers and didn't hesitate much to reply...only when confused. He didn't beat Congress but FB came out looking better than expected and he also. Congress won by asking fair, detailed, and pointed questions...better questions than I expected. Day one questions hit hard but day 2 dwindled into a little bit of a complimentary tone for ZB toward the end of that session. Kind of disappointed me a little bit, feeling like there was a mild "fanboy happy" narcosis of the actual scale of internet issues ahead. It doesn't end with FB and Twitter...they aren't even a drop in the bucket.
3. Strategy-FB had a simple plan and ZB executed it basically flawlessly, although I think everyone finished the hearings believing that FB has much work to do. ZB had no answer for at least 20 or more questions and promised to have his team reply. He did do a good job explaining that FB doesn't collect and sell data. It only uses the data for the apps and features of the site, and FB gets money for being able to put targeted ads in front of users. Parts of the discussion got very detailed about all of this. The strategy was a VERY good strategy that is buying FB time.

Summary-The whole thing came across to me as the beginning baby steps of the education of Congress with regards to computer and internet. The bigger challenges are clearly ahead which are for me are ethics in programming and international cooperation and also all the regulation issues that accompany those challenges. I was worried more at the end by the slightly conciliatory tone of the hearings. It was almost back slapping a few times.

I would have been worried even without the "back slapping", because after all this is just ONE internet site of the hoards. Also, this completely ignores the rampant issues around the world with regards to data loss and FB's poor record with Congress to date. However, I guess it was clear to me that 8-10 Senators and house members at least smelled the bigger issues and that eases my mind anyway that the fuse to serious fixes is lit and burning.

I actually have alot of confidence that the FB hearings were a good start. That Congress was able to ask fairly complex questions and understand (and see through to a degree) ZB's answers was kind of encouraging. I feel like Congress is getting closer to taking things to the next level. Guess only time will tell.

 

[yitworths]

LOL I'll try yitworths. First it was 2 days so it was long and there were some short breaks to make it better I guess 2 each day for about 15 minutes per break. So here is my summary:

1. Tone- Congress was interested in what was happening and the questions were fair and on the issue. Some were very pointed and tested Zuckerberg, who held up well throughout. Obviously, FB had a strategy to stick with why FB was started and ZB delivered it in the most noble tone of "I wanted to help people connect" and that's what we still want to do. Zuckerberg answered but stuck to those defenses. To his credit he was real about FB's failures which must have helped him in the end.
2. Congress-Congress was fairly up to the minute on using FB and on basic internet issues. The questions were almost exclusively limited to FB specific issues. Nothing beyond FB except mentions of Cambridge Analytics. Zuckerberg explained FB's response after learning of the leak, and it was a decent answer in light of everything. The company responded pretty quickly. Broad cross section of questions and ZB answered them admitting FB needs to clean up its act. Questions were good but ZB too was good and consistent with his answers and didn't hesitate much to reply...only when confused. He didn't beat Congress but FB came out looking better than expected and he also. Congress won by asking fair, detailed, and pointed questions...better questions than I expected. Day one questions hit hard but day 2 dwindled into a little bit of a complimentary tone for ZB toward the end of that session. Kind of disappointed me a little bit, feeling like there was a mild "fanboy happy" narcosis of the actual scale of internet issues ahead. It doesn't end with FB and Twitter...they aren't even a drop in the bucket.
3. Strategy-FB had a simple plan and ZB executed it basically flawlessly, although I think everyone finished the hearings believing that FB has much work to do. ZB had no answer for at least 20 or more questions and promised to have his team reply. He did do a good job explaining that FB doesn't collect and sell data. It only uses the data for the apps and features of the site, and FB gets money for being able to put targeted ads in front of users. Parts of the discussion got very detailed about all of this. The strategy was a VERY good strategy that is buying FB time.

Summary-The whole thing came across to me as the beginning baby steps of the education of Congress with regards to computer and internet. The bigger challenges are clearly ahead which are for me are ethics in programming and international cooperation and also all the regulation issues that accompany those challenges. I was worried more at the end by the slightly conciliatory tone of the hearings. It was almost back slapping a few times.

I would have been worried even without that, because after all this is just ONE internet site of the hoards. Also, this completely ignores the rampant issues around the world with regards to data loss. However, I guess it was clear to me that a 8-10 Senators and house members at least smelled the bigger issues and that eases my mind anyway that the fuse to serious fixes is lit and burning.

I actually have alot of confidence that the FB hearings were a good start. That Congress was able to ask fairly complex questions and understand (and see through to a degree) ZB's answers was kind of encouraging. I feel like Congress is getting closer to taking things to the next level. Guess only time will tell.

As Zuckerberg wasn't hard-pressed,I'm considering it as just an eye-wash.

Btw, cambridge analytica is jst one, there are many other analytics services which are collecting FB users' data. did anyone ask Zuckerberg about their conducts?
As much as I know FB is free service & Zuckerberg is one of the richest man. This equation can be solved if only if we would know what kinda data retention & data exchange happen behind our back.
There need some criminal law to persecute those who exploit this kinda data. Our Govt. don't like whistle-blowers, but they have no problem whatsoever if Corps. are exploiting data to this extent. Oh I just recalled,state-machinery is hijacked by big corps.

According to Benito Mussolini Fascism = Corporatism.
We are just witnessing camouflaged fascism.

 

[AtlBo]

Btw, cambridge analytica is jst one, there are many other analytics services which are collecting FB users' data. did anyone ask Zuckerberg about their conducts?

Definitely, and on a number of fronts. After day one, it was clear that FB was collecting data without proper consent in at least some cases. Also, the apps were leaking data was a BIG problem for the company, and the impression was that ZB knew that much coming into the hearings. He was very conciliatory about that fact. Day one hit hard and clearly some Congressmen don't care for where ZB is taking FB. Still, I thought it was good restraint that they didn't choose to 100% corner him, considering the scope of internet problems in the big picture. I believe that would have been a VERY bad idea.

As much as I know FB is free service & Zuckerberg is one of the richest man. This equation can be solved if only if we would know what kinda data retention & data exchange happen behind our back.

Probably 8-10 of the Congressmen brought up this exact point during their question sessions. The focus was more on how the company is raking in money, but it was not lost on anyone that FB is raking in cash from the ad space it sells and that FB users aren't profiting from that exchange.

There was much discussion on what happens behind the scenes. That was helpful, but it really helped ZB too. His explanation was that the company does not sell data...only uses it for FB applications so that the applications will function...keep appointment data for the calendar, etc. He was given the opportunity to stumble on this a dozen times probably, but ZB answered assuredly that the data is only used for the apps and to target FB page ads. He also did mention that it is possible to opt out numerous times, although I have heard that is very difficult. Congress seemed aware of this, however, and some of the questions were very pointed on this issue, leaving ZB to explain that the Cambridge Analytica incident shows that FB needs "to do more". He was really adamant and convincing about that issue, reflecting clear concern at FB about improvements. BTW, I have noticed that there are more options for refusing data sharing on the share pop ups now, so FB seems to be implementing things.

There need some criminal law to persecute those who exploit this kinda data. Our Govt. don't like whistle-blowers, but they have no problem whatsoever if Corps. are exploiting data to this extent. Oh I just recalled,state-machinery is hijacked by big corps.

Not sure what country you mean. However, under American law a corporation is a person and can be sued like a person. FB can be sued but, also, FB wasn't exploiting data according to ZB. It was a data breach and at Cambridge Analytica...not FB. It had nothing to do with selling data etc.

There is an imbalance imo when a simple idea like FB drops so much money into one person's bank accounts. To me, this is a reflection of the weakness of current regulation of internet activities. By this, I don't mean censorship, I mean rather rules and penalties and stock and standard ways of doing business...ways that satisfy everyone. Also, there are the GIGANTIC issues to tackle like corporate spying and idea theft.

When was the last time you recall a corporation being behind something that wasn't initiated by a government? I can't think of any, but I would be interested to hear about them. Haven't heard of corps spying on governments to date. Anyway, government is in a far more powerful position to work in unity than the corporate world, which is segmented by healthy competitive forces. For that reason, government seems to me to be the far more powerful and potentially dangerous entity.

 

[yitworths]

Also, the apps were leaking data

Really. It's leak,not by-design. We get to know all this infos can be considered as leak. The infos get out from apps shouldn't be considered leaks.

FB is raking in cash from the ad space it sells

Just ads they sell. Has ever any corps disclosed their bussiness model. Whatsapp & Instagram are owmed by FB now. They are centralizing flow of infos. Future is gloomy.

His explanation was that the company does not sell data

Did he keep a straight face?

I have noticed that there are more options for refusing data sharing on the share pop ups now, so FB seems to be implementing things.

Or they have changed their tactics?

 

[yitworths]

Not sure what country you mean. However, under American law a corporation is a person and can be sued like a person.

I'm talking about Intl. law.Data doesn't reside in one place. You may compare new euro law for privacy vs american law for privacy. & try to find which one FB mostly abide by.

It was a data breach and at Cambridge Analytica...not FB. It had nothing to do with selling data etc.

As much I know, it is a case of whistle-blowing. An insider breaks it out. & btw FB got caught along with CA.

When was the last time you recall a corporation being behind something that wasn't initiated by a government? I can't think of any, but I would be interested to hear about them. Haven't heard of corps spying on governments to date. Anyway, government is in a far more powerful position to work in unity than the corporate world, which is segmented by healthy competitive forces. For that reason, government seems to me to be the far more powerful and potentially dangerous entity.

This bit may inflict some serious discussion.

Haven't heard of corps spying on governments to date

if you can put a stooge to control state machinery, you don't need to spy them.

government is in a far more powerful position to work in unity than the corporate world

yeah. I just don't understand why still big corps do large electoral funding for some candidates.To understand about goverment power, one can learn from syriza government. Which just blackmailed into accepting every terms & conditions of some other institutions.

corporate world, which is segmented by healthy competitive forces

This is age old Social-darwinism. Man, in evolution, competition is a harmful process. Species may change because of it. In financial world competition is just a facade, no big corps like real competition. & trust me or not, most innovations come from collective efforts & then those are gobbled up by big corps. Youtube wasn't developed by google. But who owns youtube now. What kinda competition,you think it is. Just think of it, if every code would have been patented what kinda world it would have been. You may dislike state, what you should. But in doing so you are relying upon another state-like entity. That's why I said camouflaged fascism. You won't even realize, how much power Big corps of today's have. We are heading towards neo-colonization. Look closely every big corps, they have d same bureaucratic struture as government does. They just use different terminology.

government seems to me to be the far more powerful and potentially dangerous entity.

Government is vulnerable entity, its nature changes quickly. Big corps' nature doesn't change. There profit making policy is their God. Human tragedy is nothing but figment to them. If tragedy profits them, so be it.