Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg Apologizes For the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, Says He Isn't Opposed To Regulation (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Mark Zuckerberg apologized on Wednesday evening for his company's handling of the Cambridge Analytica privacy scandal. "This was a major breach of trust and I'm really sorry this happened," he said in an interview on CNN. "Our responsibility now is to make sure this doesn't happen again." Zuckerberg's comments reflected the first time he apologized following an uproar over how Facebook allowed third-party developers to access user data. Earlier in the day, Zuckerberg wrote a Facebook post in which he said the company had made mistakes in its handling of the Cambridge Analytica data revelations. The company laid out a multipart plan designed to reduce the amount of data shared by users with outside developers, and said it would audit some developers who had access to large troves of data before earlier restrictions were implemented in 2014. Zuckerberg also told CNN that he is not totally opposed to regulation. "I'm not sure we shouldn't be regulated," he said. "There are things like ad transparency regulation that I would love to see."
Other highlights of Zuckerberg's interviews:
-He told multiple outlets that he would be willing to testify before Congress.
-He said the company would notify everyone whose data was improperly used.
-He told the New York Times that Facebook would double its security force this year, adding: "We'll have more than 20,000 people working on security and community operations by the end of the year, I think we have about 15,000 now."
-He told the Times that Facebook would investigate "thousands" of apps to determine whether they had abused their access to user data.
Regarding moderation, Zuckerberg told Recode: "[The] thing is like, 'Where's the line on hate speech?' I mean, who chose me to be the person that did that?" Zuckerberg said. "I guess I have to, because of where we are now, but I'd rather not."
Other highlights of Zuckerberg's interviews:
-He told multiple outlets that he would be willing to testify before Congress.
-He said the company would notify everyone whose data was improperly used.
-He told the New York Times that Facebook would double its security force this year, adding: "We'll have more than 20,000 people working on security and community operations by the end of the year, I think we have about 15,000 now."
-He told the Times that Facebook would investigate "thousands" of apps to determine whether they had abused their access to user data.
Regarding moderation, Zuckerberg told Recode: "[The] thing is like, 'Where's the line on hate speech?' I mean, who chose me to be the person that did that?" Zuckerberg said. "I guess I have to, because of where we are now, but I'd rather not."
He is lying. Which he is not good at. Same with little Cheryl.
Wonder what was in these boxes ?
https://twitter.com/bercbon4/status/976444112139366400
The Consvervative party in the UK used Cambridge Analalytica to help them during their election, is it a wonder it is taking so long to get a warrant ?
Sorry you found out about Facebook's business model.
A former media director for the Obama campaign said Facebook allowed them to access the personal data of its users in 2011 because the social media giant was “on our side.”
"Davidsen said she built a database of every American voter by using the same Facebook tool that Cambridge Analytica exploited to amass information on 50 million users."
https://nypost.com/2018/03/20/obamas-former-media-director-said-facebook-was-once-on-our-side/
Are we in that double standards place again with the liberal media - " do as we say not as we do" swamp?......
All animals are equal, some are more equal than others......
>' I mean, who chose me to be the person that did that?" Zuckerberg said. "I guess I have to, because of where we are now, but I'd rather not."
You did motherfucker!!
Take some damn responsibility for your actions. You think those billions were free? With great something, something something, something? How does that go again?
ffs.
Only apps can app apps, and Appbridge Appalytics was simply apping apps that app other apps! LUDDITE Mark Zuckerberg is jealous that he couldn't app apps while apping other apps!
Apps!
In what universe doubling 15,000 gets you 20,000?
And Zuckerberg's billions seized.
Now that thousands of apps have downloaded it, and each has backed it up to multiple locations, it should be simplicity itself to stuff that cat right back into its bag.
foreign election influence has been a mainstay of US foreign policy for sixty years. The same politicians without term limits who snored thorugh anti-communist proxy wars and endless US efforts to topple legitimate foreign governments are somehow entitled to have their musings on Facebook taken seriously? we wrote the book on this kind of chicanery and now its come home to roost.
The fact of life we deal with now under the cheeto in chief is that Hillary clinton was a turd of a candidate being rammed through primaries like some kind of unstoppable force. The email scandal, her involvement with the US governments sabotage of haitian minimum wage, and her untenable platform of lecturing blue collar workers on austerity while dressed in a five thousand dollar dress should easily have cost her delegates. Sanders was the stronger candidate who tackled issues like Wall Street,climate and Jobs, but delegates filed in lock step with Clinton because it was just "her time?" Give me a break.
Good people go to bed earlier.
From what I gather, Trump used the Cambridge data as an alternative to GOP data - in case his own party decided to shaft him. This was data bought without users consent.
Obama had a FB app that was optional and informed the users that it would gather data.
Just did a quick read here, no idea how accurate or biased the writeup may be.
TLDR; Trump bought data, Obama asked for it.
.
You are a CEO of a huge company, act like one.
Yes, it's abundantly clear the two campaigns have each committed mostly the same sins.
- Over 99% of people in the data set did not give any consent at all and were included by proxy. Less than half a million opted in while 50-100 million did not.
- The vast majority of people who consented also probably had no idea what they were agreeing to. CA's source collected data through a quiz, Obama did it through a facebook login and sharing tool.
- In either case, retaining, analyzing and selling the data was against the terms of service. Plenty of smaller apps were being policed in those days.
The only big difference is that Facebook was aware of Obama's shenanigans and looked the other way, while now they are cooperating and clamping down.
It's only bad when the opposing team does it is the biggest disease on the left today. They are so convinced of their moral superiority, they are throwing out all the principles they are supposed to believe in, acting more like authoritarian traditionalists in the process.
What's the difference between what Trump's team did and what Obama did in 2012?
Obama did it with FB's blessing.
From other news reports either FB or people at FB supported Obama
Trump used a 3rd party company which didn't give FB their cut / fee
How is what Trump did worse?
see above
... Zuck's not publicly opposed to regulation now. He knows he's been caught, has to "do" or "say" something. His advisors will assure him, sooner or later, Facebook staff, lobbying and lawyers will guide the regulatory apparatus to stifle new competition.
Fred fails to opt out of 'platform enable' which Facebook counts as permission to sell the data of his family friends and business colleges. FB lets all that data be used for 'research'.
Which is bollocks, Fred cannot give permission to hand over the data of people he knowns, and anyway Facebook turned this feature on by default, and Zuck knows the 'research' is really a catchall privacy excuse to sell data for any reason. Because rigging an election is "researching how to win".
In this case Aleksandr Kogan of Cambridge Analytica realized he could get all that data with a simple Facebook app, Cambridge Analyitca spent $800,000 on the app, funded in part by Russia, he goes an sells the data, over in St Petersberg as a great way to rig foreign elections, and the rest is history.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/20/technology/aleksandr-kogan-video-facebook-cambridge-analytica/index.html
Think of all that data in Facebook that's only supposed to be visible to a few people, actually slurped down, analysed, packaged up and handed to a Russian troll factory to be used against you. That's what FB is doing.
Zuck's crocodile tears are meaningless, they set out to obtain and sell that data, and its what they do.
Paypal too. Read their privacy policy. Any transaction you do on FB is up for sale to any government or business as data for 'research'.
Your ISP's too, they sell the billing details against your IP address and a timestamp. No limits on the sale.
Moron. Trump is a Russian.
I forgot to ad Obama's team did it all within America where went foreign companies
Obama used the data to contact folks that actually wanted the hear his message and to raise money. Get it? Any most of those folks ASKED to be in on it.
Cambridge did it behind peoples' backs. It was really sleazy. And coupled with Russia's meddling ...
And looking at some of the retarded ads that they pushed onto people - I cannot believe people are so gullible. But then again, the Republicans are great at bait and switch or convincing folks that the leopard won't eat THEIR face but everyone elses.
Seriously, you really need to get informed.
I can see how this is going to go.
From my post on this last article:
I don't really feel like defending Obama because I disagree with a lot of what he did but explain to me this:
Did Obama's campaign hire foreign nationals to do the scraping? Remember, it's illegal to hire foreign nationals directly.
Did Obama's campaign break the TOS of facebook or any other data privacy laws?
Was Obama's campaign transparent in his methods? Because Cambridge Analyitica is secretive, uses shell companies and encrypted self deleting emails, and Nix is on tape saying he happily lies, uses honey pots and the like, and misdirects - did Obama engage in hiring people who use those methods?
Did obama's campaign use fake web logs, fake news articles, and other knowingly factually incorrect sources, in a highly targeted approach to misdirecting unsuspecting undecided voters?
You may consider it splitting hairs, I certainly don't approve of Obama's use of invasion of privicy for his social media campaign, but this looks like a case of comparing theft of a stack of free newspapers to a bank robbery.
One of them has colored skin. The other one was born that way.
From what I gather, Trump used the Cambridge data as an alternative to GOP data - in case his own party decided to shaft him. This was data bought without users consent.
Obama had a FB app that was optional and informed the users that it would gather data.
Just did a quick read here, no idea how accurate or biased the writeup may be.
TLDR; Trump bought data, Obama asked for it.
So FB was actively complicit in gaving away for free to Obama, that a normal company would have had to pay for?
Hmm, did the Obama campaign report that as a political contribution-in-kind?
I'm going to guess "No".
this much attention and overall public scrutiny had been given to the Equifax and OPM breaches. Those were actually serious breaches impacting a ton of people if very real financial ways (~143M people for the Equifax, and most of the DoD Personal for the OPM). Those blew over quickly with no changes at all.
Versus information that people voluntary put up on FB and only seems to be an issue because targeted ads to support someone they don't like.
If I did that I would go to jail. Who's going to jail over this?
Also noteworthy : if things changed in 2014, did CA use data they pulled back then, before trump was even a candidate? or did they pull something new after the 2014 changes once hired by trump's campaign?
Don't be silly. "Having a meaningful conversation" here means he gets to set ("help shape") the rules.
Rules mean, to a large company, a couple extra warm bodies in the compliance department. Changing the rules means greasing the wheels, for which they have the means. For a small company those same rules might well mean that the whole thing becomes a non-starter. So rules keep the competition out. So of course he isn't opposed to rules. He's got the means to make them work for him.
Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
Johnny Mathis and Denise Williams
1978
Guess it's over, call it a day
Sorry that it had to end this way
No reason to pretend
We knew it had to end some day, this way
Guess, it's over, the kicks are gone
What's the use of tryin' to hang on?
Somewhere we lost the key
So little left for you and me and it's clear to see
Too much, too little, too late to lie again with you
Too much, too little, too late to try again with you
We're in the middle of ending something that we do
It's all over
Oh, it was over
Too much, too little, too late to ever try again
Too much, too little, too late, let's end it being friends
Too much, too little, too late, we knew it had to end
And it's over
It's over
Guess it's over, the chips are down
Nearly all our bridges tumbled down
Whatever chance we try, let's face it, why deny
It's over
It's all over
It's over
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
all that stolen capital being wasted on self-aggrandizement
advertising steals our time and promotes crap
The value in Facebook is really the analytical data that Cambridge is claimed to have fondled.
Nothing surprising really considering that he Facebook board is mainly composed of ex-alphabet mafia people.
The whole thing is designed to get sheeple to post all of their juice details so that Facebook can sell trending data
This in itself must be interesting considering that most Facebook users also have multiple accounts
Zuckerberg: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuckerberg: Just ask.
Zuckerberg: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuckerberg: People just submitted it.
Zuckerberg: I don't know why.
Zuckerberg: They "trust me"
Zuckerberg: Dumb fucks
Of course he's OK with regulation.
It practically kills future competition because no one will be large enough (in the early days of a company) to "comply" with all the nonsense regulations of how to properly care for you damn cat videos and gossip.
I would love to create a company and then pull up the ladder when it got big enough. Who wouldn't.
If you down FB, get ready for the next social media company to be..... Chinese!
When you screech at them about privacy, the response will be...
"GFY round eye."
That's what it sounds like to me.
Facebook has been able to spend its way out of some competing social media trends (ie, buying Instagram) and somehow buck others they couldn't (Snapchat), but mostly they were negotiating from a position of strength due to their network effect.
Now that their actual business model is exposed -- "You tell me, I sell you" -- and they're facing real risks of large-scale disaffection or defection to other platforms, of course they're fans of regulation. Broad social media regulations to keep their existing competition in check and to keep out the next big thing which might turn them into MySpace.
TV comedians and news broadcasters and Hollywood actors like Obama.
TV comedians and news broadcasters and Hollywood actors love Trump.
TV comedians now receive their jokes via Twitter, instead from their writing staff.
Broadcast news is never dull and boring any more. There is always something bizarre and outrageous to report. And if there isn't, they can easily make up some fake news. There's so much of it now, that no one can really tell the difference any more between real and fake news.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Lots of questions about a dozen things that have nothing to do with Facebook. No actual answers to any of them. But yeah, bad feels are the only thing that matters so congrats on successfully communicating them and helping people to forget the original poster's question.
So is Mark Zuckerberg. They could both vanish tomorrow and I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep.
For me, it's a bit of sweet "I told you so".
When FB first became popular around 2009-2010 and "everyone" was getting on it, I hesitated.
At first I didn't like the interface.
Then I didn't like the "keeping up with the joneses" fakeness of it.
Then I didn't like how much back stabbing and internecine bullshit was going on between people I knew who were on it.
Then I didn't like it because of how much fucking time people were spending on it.
Then I didn't like it because of other web sites were having users login using FB credentials.
Then I didn't like it because users were experiencing emotional problems(anxiety, fomo, etc)
Then I didn't like it because of the privacy violations.
Then I didn't like it because people said "I had to" be on it.
Now it has all come home to roost and I can really say "I told you so".
But now that FB and other social media juggernauts have become so powerful, there really is no way to take that power back.
The only thing people can do is get off now, and live your life without the weight, the shackles and the drag of "social media".
I kinda got the same impression from OP, but perhaps there's something here ( never mind the delivery of the message ); the method of acquisition of the data is important, not necessarily the acquisition of the data itself, nor how said data was used?
Still seems somewhat hypocritical given how this is being portrayed by the media.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
He is in no way sorry about this or the data they have collected.
He is sorry they got caught.
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
Yeah. Sure thing there genius.
And if I want to, say, hunt down who you are and hate-speech, ridicule, belittle and bully you into a public melt-down that's all right then?
Fantastic, because all of your private moments are now public and if I have the means and the motive I most certainly will have the opportunity.
Welcome to America 2.0. Freedom+$$$ vs Privacy+$$$. Let's see which one wins!
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
>Did Obama's campaign break the TOS of facebook or any other data privacy laws?
Absolutely.
>Was Obama's campaign transparent in his methods?
No. They broke Facebook's rules by sucking up the social graph, and Facebook let it happen because they were sympathetic.
Your other points don't strike me as particularly relevant. Political operatives are shady and undoubtedly all have dirt on their hands. Project Veritas managed to score similar conversations with the DNC. Yes, I know O'Keefe has a shady track record, but the video clips still exist.
Fake news... You do realize the whole reason this catch phrase was such an own goal by the left wing press was exactly because they have such a long record of spin and partisanship? The contemporary social justice movement, which both Obama and Clinton eagerly aligned themselves with, is built on highly targeted moral outrage, smearing people as sexist and racist. The James Damore case didn't happen in a vacuum. Ethics in journalism remains a question they refuse to face the facts on.
Finally, the foreign nationals charge strikes me as hollow since we're talking about the president under which international surveillance laundering became common practice, an act about which the people responsible lied about, with no repercussions.
If there was ever a time to stop splitting hairs and unite people who have all been shafted by the same issues on different sides, it would be now. Instead it's more left vs right mud slinging in the ever narrowing overton window.
Who didn't see this coming? When Obama uses big data, he's a genius.. When Trump does it, it's a problem that must be regulated.
Facebook is no different.
Any sort of regulation on Facebook's business model inarguably and by definition will favor Facebook over their smaller competitors.
So to answer some of your questions:
"Was Obama's campaign transparent in his methods? Because Cambridge Analyitica is secretive, uses shell companies and encrypted self deleting emails, and Nix is on tape saying he happily lies, uses honey pots and the like, and misdirects - did Obama engage in hiring people who use those methods?"
Obama's campaign was the least transparent campaign in the last 50 years and has hired far worse organizations.
"Did Obama's campaign break the TOS of facebook or any other data privacy laws?"
Possibly
"Did obama's campaign use fake web logs, fake news articles, and other knowingly factually incorrect sources, in a highly targeted approach to misdirecting unsuspecting undecided voters?"
Yes
"Did Obama's campaign hire foreign nationals to do the scraping? Remember, it's illegal to hire foreign nationals directly."
Hiring foreign nationals isn't the same thing as buying the services of a company that employs foreign nationals in the eyes of the law.
So to summarize- it's legal and okay when it helps the left, but awful and illegal when it helps the right or Trump.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campaigns-digital-masterminds-cash-in.html
"I'm not sure we shouldn't be regulated," he said. "There are things like ad transparency regulation that I would love to see."
Really? Then just go ahead and institute whatever it is you think the regulations would/should ultimately be. Not only would that significantly decrease the odds of the government stepping in and doing it for you, but we could all enjoy the supposed benefits of that regulation right now rather than years from now.
But that would mean you would own the decision (and its consequences) rather than being able to say "the government made me do it." And that would take some cajones that this last week has strongly suggested are MIA.
> it's illegal to hire foreign nationals directly
The wording on laws is "directly or indirectly" and it is not illegal to hire foreign nationals for various work; donation and contributions from is illegal, directly or indirectly.
If you have been checking with the news yes Obama did. The companies he hired contracted work out to foreign nationals.
Mark Zuckerberg has been doing a lot of apologizing lately and it all sounds very hollow, back-handed, and disingenuous. The best thing that one can do for themselves is to divorce themselves from Facebook altogether. Nothing good comes from having a Facebook account. Facebook encourages you to compare yourself to others and if you aren't as successful, handsome, or beautiful as they are then you psychologically feel really shitty. Furthermore, you are giving Facebook a treasure trove of information that it sells for huge profits. You've literally sold yourself to the devil. Honestly, Google, Yahoo, Bing, and their ilk aren't a whole lot better.
"I don't really feel like defending Obama because I disagree with a lot of what he did but explain to me this: "
Then don't, this isn't about Obama. I don't care if Obama, Gandhi, Hitler, or George Washington did it. I don't justify actions based upon what Obama has or has not done.
"Did Obama's campaign hire foreign nationals to do the scraping? Remember, it's illegal to hire foreign nationals directly. "
Don't care, its too late to punish Obama for any illegal activity. If he did, would it justify Trump in any way? Also I'm unaware of it being illegal to hire foreign nationals directly for a campaign. I thought it was illegal to hire foreign nationals to a decision making capacity.
"Did Obama's campaign break the TOS of facebook or any other data privacy laws?"
Facebook's TOS are not laws. Unfortunately, in the US we have very lax data privacy laws.
"Was Obama's campaign transparent in his methods? Because Cambridge Analyitica is secretive, uses shell companies and encrypted self deleting emails, and Nix is on tape saying he happily lies, uses honey pots and the like, and misdirects - did Obama engage in hiring people who use those methods?"
Would it matter? The activity was either illegal or not. Transparency on illegal activity is not justification. Likewise lack of transparency on legal activity is not criminal. You are missing the entire point by somehow pitching what Obama did as the baseline of how campaigns are supposed to be run.
"Did obama's campaign use fake web logs, fake news articles, and other knowingly factually incorrect sources, in a highly targeted approach to misdirecting unsuspecting undecided voters?"
Mostly yes. He is a politician, that's what he does. People voted for Obama because he promised change and instead they got Bush Jr 2.0. Misguiding voters is not a crime. If you don't like it as a tactic then vote for someone else.
"You may consider it splitting hairs, I certainly don't approve of Obama's use of invasion of privicy for his social media campaign, but this looks like a case of comparing theft of a stack of free newspapers to a bank robbery."
You still miss the entire point. Theft is a crime, whether its newspapers or a bank. So the point here is:
Did Trump brake the law?
If the answer is yes then jail him.
If the answer is no then move on and don't vote for him if he betrayed your trust.
The whole of social media is a virus.
And they never go away.
Just change and morph by the CYA rules.
'till the cows come home to roost.
Where does the buck stop?
'where the doe-dough-$ is__!!
Yes, there is very little barrier to entry for Facebook competitors.
To the contrary, there is a tremendous barrier for entry. A social network's value to a user is dependent on how many people are already signed up. A network starting up-- with by definition zero users-- has no value; it will basically have to invest money to effectively pay people to join until it has enough users to attract other users.
The same is true for many systems-- dating services, for example.
It's a vastly unstable system-- little operations stay little, and big operations grow nearly in proportion to their bigness.
He told the New York Times that Facebook would double its security force this year, adding: "We'll have more than 20,000 people working on security and community operations by the end of the year, I think we have about 15,000 now."
If he's going to double the security force, he needs to go from 15,000 to 30,000. That's quite a bit over "more than 20,000".
(Yes, technically 30,000 counts as "more than 20,000"-- but if he meant 30,000, it would have been just as easy to simply say.)
Just opinions that don't align with his. What a tool. Their AOL moment can't come soon enough.
What is hypocritical to me is the obama did it so it's ok. Seriously people, if you aren't comfortable with data being used this way agree both campaigns made you uncomfortable (even if in different ways) and change the system. Two wrongs don't make a free pass to justify it as right forever more.
So the contacts of all the people who installed Obama's app gave consent for their data to be scraped? Because that's exactly what happened and why it's just the same as what Trump did. Who's the clueless one here?
He knows full well that--as a member of The Club--he'll be in a position to write his own "regulations." This is just his way of saying "Puhleeze don't throw me in that briar patch!"
What base are these numbers in?
False. I didn't want to hear Obama at all and I was getting nothing but spammed by his nonsense. I was sick and tired of the man before he even started running since I lived in Illinois. I tried warning people about him to no avail.
That man singlehandedly brought the US down the wrong path, increased racial divisiveness, and really tried to turn us into his homeland of Kenya.
I only wish I could have kicked his can out the door of the Whitehouse when he finally got out.
Captcha: furlong.
Use it in a sentence: This news is amazingly stupid and I hope it won't be news furlong.
I'm undecided how I feel about it, actually. I thought Obama's use was innovative, which would make Trump's use derivative. Effective though, so I can't fault either campaign in it's use.
Am I uncomfortable about privacy implications? No more so than I am about this life-leash we all carry around in our pockets that knows virtually everything about us.
What I know I don't like is how everyone is making a big deal about Trump being a horrible person for doing what Obama did 4 years earlier and being celebrated for.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
... because it's a goddam membership naivete problem.
Facebook could spend more time/money educating its membership regarding the difference between bullshit and wild honey.
Most people have grown up with the Internet and it's incorrect to suggest that they are duped.
We don't fall for propaganda -- we embrace it and love it and feed it -- and we amplify whatever fits our world view.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
It's called the network effect.
Sort of like when Leonardo DaVinci invented the telephone.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
was to bump Zuck off for the 2020 nomination.
Obama had a FB app that was optional and informed the users that it would gather data...Trump bought data, Obama asked for it.
So what you're saying is that in addition to investigating Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, Congress should also investigate all the Obama supporters that agreed to provide their friends lists? That's what we're after, right? Parties that give up other people's data without their consent?
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
So you are effectively disagreeing with what the parent post noted:
You're comfortable knowing that your privacy is invaded in one area, so you're comfortable with it happening in all other areas. This kind of mentality is frightening
Zuck is a crony capitalist.
He is not an actual capitalist.
Crony capitalists, like Zuck, love regulation precisely because they control how it is written and implemented, to the destruction of their weaker, would-be competitors.
> Remember, it's illegal to hire foreign nationals directly.
Remember: Christopher Steele is a foreign national.
Extra sour that they have thousands of moderators and all kinds of algorithms to detect and remove female nipples and other human body parts the poor Facebook citizens can't bear to see according to to "community-rules", but of course threatening, bullying and dehumanizing other people is much preferred over seeing what a human being actually looks like.
Anyone else detect a slight whiff of vodka?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
These are political parties not f*cking teams!!! Goddamnit this is the worst thing about Americans and their politics. It's not the Bulls vs. the Celtics, where winning or losing doesn't mean anything. It's about selecting people to run the government, which will affect you and your country for as long as it lasts. Kind of important! Not teams!
Of course he wants regulation. Regulation will make it much harder for potential competitors to get started, helping Facebook maintain its market dominant position.
Oh great, so further merging with the feds? It keeps getting better.
Obama had a FB app that was optional and informed the users that it would gather data...Trump bought data, Obama asked for it.
So what you're saying is that in addition to investigating Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, Congress should also investigate all the Obama supporters that agreed to provide their friends lists? That's what we're after, right? Parties that give up other people's data without their consent?
Huge difference.
When you friend someone you agree to let them have access to your data. Otherwise you wouldn't friend them. How fucking dumb you must be to think these are equatable.
Right now they've got everyone screaming for regulation.
Guess what they're gonna get: Regulation!
What are they going to regulate? Stuff on the internet!
What is the stuff? Free Speech!
Facebook is already violating everyone's privacy for their own profit and for the US Government. Why give them more?
You're the clueless one. CA not only got the user who gave permission but scraped the user's entire network's data who didn't even know about it.
Mark Zuckerberg wants Facebook to be regulated as a utility because that will foreclose any brand-new competition for him. He wants to be regulated. He's got his multibillions!
It's called the network effect.
Sort of like when Leonardo DaVinci invented the telephone.
Wait, but who invented Kevin Bacon?
... about as much as I trust what The Donald says.
Zuckerberg, face it, you are an arrogant, sophomoric ass and people can't wait to see your brogrammer-boy company go the way of Yahoo!