Slashdot Mirror
Zuckerberg Grilled At Angry Facebook Shareholder's Meeting (mercurynews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the Mercury News' report on Facebook's annual shareholder's meeting:
On Thursday in Menlo Park, one investor compared the social network's poor stewardship of user data to a human rights violation. Another warned that scandal is not good for Facebook's bottom line. And one advised Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg to emulate George Washington, not Vladimir Putin, and avoid turning Facebook into a "corporate dictatorship." Facebook struggled to keep order, kicking one woman out of the meeting within the first few minutes for repeated interruptions. A plane zipped overhead pulling a banner that read "YOU BROKE DEMOCRACY" and advertising Freedom From Facebook, a group of privacy and anti-monopoly activists that are pressing the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to break up the company...
Zuckerberg repeated the same reassurances he used in front of U.S. and European lawmakers earlier this year: The company hasn't taken a broad enough view of its responsibility... "We're also very focused on being more transparent," Zuckerberg said, touting the fact that the company had just posted its policies on content moderation for the first time. Minutes earlier, the company announced that shareholder proposals for more transparency and oversight had failed, surprising no one. Zuckerberg controls the company through special stock that gives him more votes than other shareholders.
"Facebook said that just because the proposals were blocked, that didn't mean the company doesn't care about these issues."
Zuckerberg repeated the same reassurances he used in front of U.S. and European lawmakers earlier this year: The company hasn't taken a broad enough view of its responsibility... "We're also very focused on being more transparent," Zuckerberg said, touting the fact that the company had just posted its policies on content moderation for the first time. Minutes earlier, the company announced that shareholder proposals for more transparency and oversight had failed, surprising no one. Zuckerberg controls the company through special stock that gives him more votes than other shareholders.
"Facebook said that just because the proposals were blocked, that didn't mean the company doesn't care about these issues."
Stop waiting for the government to take action. If everyone wants to teach Facebook and the Zuck a lesson, all you have to do is to close your account. If millions of people left Facebook for good, it would implode under its own weight. But alas, too many people are addicted to it. Sometimes it's the people who scream the loudest that are the most addicted to it.
Micro-targeting of voters was used by Obama against Hillary.
But when Trump does it, suddenly Facebook has overstepped.
The problem is Facebook's shitty policies which allowed a researcher to obtain details of people who hadn't agreed to give them and the amount of people's whose details were gathered. Who used them is not the issue.
Zuckerberg Grilled At Angry Facebook Shareholder's Meeting
Oh, metaphorically grilled. Had my hopes up there for a minute. How disappointing.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Should have listened to Stallman. I mean seriously it's a sad reflection on society when 100 millions of people just give everything to an unaccountable company and then cry about it later. It's really hard to have sympathy but honestly what where these people thinking? IN 2018 gullibility, peer pressure, and naivety still rule human behavior.
In Obama's case an app was made and people OPTED INTO giving it their personal data. In Cambridge's case the data was taken without CONSENT.
See the difference and the line that was crossed? I capitalized them so it's easier for you to pick out from inside the blurry Fox bubble.
The solution is surely to restrict political advertising during elections. Other countries do this already.
We should certainly ban political advertising by foreigners near an election, just as we already ban campaign contributions from foreigners. Sadly, its the same politicians who enforce that ban, so it's not exactly strict.
But when it comes to Americans running political ads during elections, that's exactly what is meant by "freedom of the press". And freedom of the press should not be limited to the likes of Bezos, who can buy the Washington Post to get his opinion out there. Us peons who can only buy an ad, not the whole paper, also deserve freedom to express political dissent during an election.
Also, where's the line between an ad an an op-ed? Between an op-ed and selective reporting? If you follow through on your proposal, you're saying that CNN can run 24/7 anti-Trump coverage near an election, and in fact can't mention Trump negatively (or positively, as if) near the election at all. That's sort of the opposite of freedom of the press.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"Facebook said that just because the proposals were blocked, that didn't mean the company doesn't care about these issues."
They care very deeply, because of the potential loss of revenue if they can't continue to harvest their "customers" data like the Japanese harvest whales.
That's not the major problem and your B&W description doesn't match reality. People have complained about the targeting practices and the more developed the methods become (and information about them get widely spread) the more there are to criticize.
Most complaints now is from the realization of how easy the existing systems can be abused by a third party (mostly claimed to be Russia) combined with the ease another third party (Cambridge Analytica) could gain access to user data even if it was through deception.
Most people doesn't complain about the Trump campaign as much as they complain about Russia having a say in the internal politics of the USA.
Facebook has posted guidelines on content moderation, now, for the first time? That kind of incompetence borders on being liable. Why have there not ALWAYS been formal guidelines?
Sure people gave consent. They consented for facebook to have their info and they voluntarily dumped personal info into the machine. Cambridge was allowed by Facebook to get that data in exchange for money. It is part of the 3rd party sharing in the terms and conditions that people agreed to when they signed up. This is no scandal, only that people say they want privacy but won't take any action to actually get there. If you don't want facebook to have yout info, don't give it to them. Novel concept.
No worries for the press today since theyâ(TM)re all owned by a major political party.
Mostly owned by the DNC but the Rs have a few outlets too which of course get labeled extremist or alt-whatever.
Either way the press is now perfectly free to parrot their political masters.
Micro-targeting of voters was used by Obama against Hillary. But when Trump does it, suddenly Facebook has overstepped.
Yes because he got Russia to meddle in a US election, you dumb-ass. We're allowed to meddle in our own elections, that's just campaigning.
No, freedom of the press was not regarding political ads. It was to ensure that the public could be informed by the press about government malfeasance without state reprisal.
Again, is the freedom to publish one's political view limited to the like of Bezos and Murdock, who can buy a newspaper corporation, or ordinary people who can only buy an ad?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
as a foreigner, why would i care about your laws and why should your "advertisement ban by foreigners" be in any way binding to me? i never in y life set foot on USA soil, and i dont intend to
That's great and all, but we're talking about the US government regulating US corporations, and US political campaigns.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Investors in a datamining company complaining about datamining. Sounds like those shareholders of Shell who were complaining about climate change.
I can't wait for the logical extension:
Shareholders of Smith and Weston complaining that people die due to bullets.
Shareholders of Ratheyon complaining that their products explode.
Shareholders of VW complaining that customers are able drive somewhere.
What's so amazing about it? PRISM didn't feel like a personal violation, just an overreach of authority. Cambridge felt like a violation of personal space.
Also PRISM didn't have wide spread abuse of said data. All the targets were considered "bad". But with Cambridge, it gave a stark example that people could relate to directly.
Finally PRISM was written off as benign "metadata". That didn't scare people. But with Cambridge+Facebook+Personal Data in one sentence, people got a concrete idea just what was used. Most likely far less than they think was actually used but that's not the perception.
But when it comes to Americans running political ads during elections, that's exactly what is meant by "freedom of the press".
Um, no. Freedom of the press was all about the government not being able to suppress editorial content, not regulation of paid content.
The baffling supreme court decision that the first amendment should be interpreted to classify money as speech wasn't from 1796, but 1976.
This, along with the "corporate personhood" doctrine, has subverted the constitution and amendments from what was the obvious intent to something completely different, eroding the safeties of the individual from abuse of power that the founding fathers clearly had in mind.
Didn't Obama's app harvest the details from the friends of people that agreed? So people who DIDN'T CONSENT. Tell me how that crossing of the line is different.
No it wasn't what people agreed to. Facebook's first response was that Cambridge violated the terms of use of said data access. Facebook did a piss poor job of enforcing data protection but that doesn't make this a "business as it was designed" situation.
Again, is the freedom to publish one's political view limited to the like of Bezos and Murdock, who can buy a newspaper corporation, or ordinary people who can only buy an ad?
The press is free to refuse to publish. You have no right to buy ads.
Write your own pamphlets, run your own private press - that is explicitly protected.
Obama invented this strategy and won twice with it.
The facts haven't changed, its liberal opinions that change. It is a mental disorder .
When Nate silver was doing the same thing to announce ahead of time that Obama would win, he was a hero.
When Nate did the same thing again and said trump might win, he disappeared again.
It's scumbags like you who are ruining this country.
No, it's not the vocal scumbags who ruin the country, it's all of those who can't be bothered to stand up to the scumbags.
"Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."
-- John Stuart Mill
The press is free to refuse to publish. You have no right to buy ads.
Write your own pamphlets, run your own private press - that is explicitly protected.
You're making a new argument, unrelated to the previous topic of the thread. The point was the government must not prevent you from buying political ads. And the broadcast media (OTA TV and radio) does not have the right to refuse to publish, because the airwaves are regulated by that same government. Heck, I remember DJs in Florida apologizing for political ads during the 2000 election, explaining this very thing - people would call in and yell at the station for the (woefully mistargeted) political ads they were running, but they had no choice.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Again, are you really arguing that an ordinary person, who can only afford to buy an ad, not a newspaper corporation, does not have the right to political expression? Are you sure you want to say "political speech is only protected for 1%ers"?
You're even implying (intentionally?) that a group of like-minded people can't pool their money to show a film critical of a political candidate. Did you mean to imply that, or have I misunderstood you?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
And why shouldn't GP commentator br able to conduct whatever sort of political campaign, even one directed at American voters, from his home country outside the US? Are we going to set up a great firewall that blocks out foreign political advocacy?
To put it another way: You deleted your FB. Is that the case?
I've never had a fb account, never will.
I'm not the OP, but your question implied that nobody could be without fb. I love not being on it. FB is "the mosh pit", full of people who absolutely need others to constantly acknowledge them... and it's gross and pathetic.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Micro-targeting of voters was used by Obama against Hillary. But when Putin does it, suddenly Facebook has overstepped.
Fixed that for ya
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Sweet Jeesus. I mean, SWEEEEEEET JEEEAAAASSSUUUUSSS! OMG PWNIES. It's like cra-cra and stuff.
The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
That's great and all, but we're talking about the US government regulating US corporations, and US political campaigns.
That's not how the world works anymore - that started changing with the advent of radio, which doesn't recognize borders, and culminated with Internet. A media company headquartered in Ireland and an ad agency in Bucarest can present ads to an American public with the US government having no direct jurisdiction.
They can attempt to squash any US based operations a company may have in retaliation, but then they risk running afoul of constitutional protections.
Actually, the government's powers to limit political advertising are very limited.if not non-existent, according to the US Supreme Court. See 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, and Citizens United v FEC. Politically-related advertisements have been interpreted as having virtually no restrictions.
Hillary Clinton and her supporters also have major logic flaws in their argument that she "lost because of Russian interference". She herself has also claimed dozens of other reasons for her losing, like Comey announcing he found new emails, which are all arguments against Russian being the primary culprit for her loss. There is also the fact that Russia's use of social media was dwarfed by the combined social media, broadcast media and in-person rallies that her own supporters had. Are we really to believe that Russia's anonymous facebook posts and ads were more effective than the combined efforts of virtually every Hollywood celebrity, the overwhelmingly positive press coverage she received during the campaign relative to the negative press coverage of Donald Trump, the tens of billions of dollars spent by PACs and her campaign on advertisements, etc?
It's quite a stretch to believe that's true. It's safe to say that Russian facebook ads and anonymous posts were a minnow swimming in a sea of whales where ads were concerned.
What so now you tell me painting with blood and fucking little kids is weird? Now you tell me!
Sincerely,
The Aristocracy
Yes - that has always been the law.
Americans determine the government of America. Seems right to me. The Queen of England has the money to outspend everyone else in an American presidential election, but we fought a war to prevent exactly that sort of control.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Almost every modern campaign that is able to target voters does target voters, Campaigns have limited resources and want to use them in the most efficient way possible. Also they do not want to energize those that will find a particular message to be negative. The whole narrative in this area is very negative. Carefully controlling free speech to insure the elites interests are honored is the opposite of democracy. The problem with Facebook is that it collects huge amounts of information which can be used for all sorts of things both good and bad.
I expect we have paid posters here sent to deflect conversations.
So what you are saying is, that both parties are corrupt and use the government to their own political advantage. The best you two can do is argue about which side fucks the other side harder? Really?
This is what is fucking wrong with this country. Fucks like the both of you are too worried about your "team" (aka political party) scoring points against the other side. Not a single fucking one of you partisan shitheads actually gives a damn about your country or Liberty.
Fuck Democrats, Fuck Republicans. Corrupt bastards the whole lot of them.
I'll just leave with this George Washington quote:
"One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart-burnings, which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those, who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection."
Again, are you really arguing that an ordinary person, who can only afford to buy an ad, not a newspaper corporation, does not have the right to political expression? Are you sure you want to say "political speech is only protected for 1%ers"?
No, I am not arguing that at all, as you well know. You're trying to construct a strawman here.
Every individual has and should have the right to political expression, but not the right to buy publishing. Buying publishing does not give equal right of expression, it gives more expression the deeper your pockets are, which favors the 1%'ers.
One system used by some countries is to only allow political ads paid for by the parties, using money received from the government based on the primary representation each party has. Any party that has enough signatures to run a ballot gets an allotment. Individuals are free to their political speech, as long as they do not pay for the publishing. I.e. if they can find a newspaper that accepts the speech as an unpaid editorial, it's fine. If they print their own pamphlets, or run their own blog, it's fine. But when money changes hands for the purpose of influencing others through advertising, it is no longer fine, as it favors the rich over the poor.
No it wasn't what people agreed to.
Like people know what they agree to.
Granted, most people didn't expect their data to be weaponized.
Facebook's first response was that Cambridge violated the terms of use of said data access.
Once your data is sold to someone, it is theirs. The idea that the seller can enforce how the buyer uses that data is cute.
Facebook did a piss poor job of enforcing data protection but that doesn't make this a "business as it was designed" situation.
It is business as it will be used. Zuckerberg cannot get out f his responsibility for this.
There is a saying, unfortunately attributed to Nikita Kruschev, that goes something like:
"The last capitalist would sell the hangman the rope used to string up his own mother."
Zuck does not actually care that he was caught, or the results of what he shares responsibility for. He cares that it might affect his bottom line, though.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I expect we have paid posters here sent to deflect conversations.
Your suspicions are correct. The over-reliance on howaboutism is one big clue.
Expect a reply to this something like "Well, Hillary and O'Blama used howaboutism"
Its howaboutism all the way down.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Every individual has and should have the right to political expression, but not the right to buy publishing.
OK, now I'm just confused. Bezos should not have the right to buy the Washington Post? Murdoch should not have the right to buy the but the Wall Street Journal, or to start Fox News?
You seem to be imagining a difference between "political expression" and "buying publishing" when it comes to freedom of the press, but I can't follow your argument. Would you limit freedom of the press to what one guy can do with a laser printer, handing out handbills on a corner?
If Murdoch want to reach a national audience with his political views, he buys the Wall Street Journal. If I want to reach a national audience with my political views, I buy an add in the Wall Street Journal. Either way it's political views in a national newspaper - words printed in the very same paper.
Where specifically is the line you're drawing here, if not restricting the freedom to the very rich? Ban both?
One system used by some countries is to only allow political ads paid for by the parties, using money received from the government
Yes, other countries don't have constitutionally protected freedom of the press. Many worldwide think that protection needless or even bad. I disagree. I stand firmly by the right of people to express their political views to whoever they can reach.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I know, I got excited, too.
No. Next question.
At this point in time you no longer get to say that you're simply ignorant.
You are either too stupid to understand written text on a page or screen, or spoken language in a video...
OR... You are so ideologically bent on supporting Nazis - which makes you a Nazi.
Or both... that's a highly probable possibility as well. Nazis ARE immensely retarded, out of sheer necessity of their ideology.
Oh... and one more thing... just to underline your utter retardation...
Micro-targeting of voters was used by Obama against Hillary.
Really? In 2008? Do you even calendar, boy?
Facebook had around 100 million users in 2008 - GLOBALLY.
Might as well target pets.com users for all the good it would do you at that point.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
19 indictments and counting vs zero says otherwise.
It's funny how the Rs are. With all this war chest against them you would think they were some losing underdog without a chance at a seat. Minority parties in other countries don't whine as much as the Rs. And the endless fear mongering. Everyone is out to get them; no one has anything better to do.
Well, you're technically correct in a very narrow sense, which, I'm told, is the best kind of correct. You'd have a rough time convincing any humans that EULAs are informed consent, however, especially unpublicized opt-out data collection and third-party sharing. Besides that, no one consented to a shadow profile, or to the collection and sale of info from data brokers to facebook. This argument just doesn't hold up to any level of scrutiny.
Where specifically is the line you're drawing here, if not restricting the freedom to the very rich? Ban both?
It's rather simple - if money changes hands for the purpose of advertising politics, it's illegal. If no money changes hands, it's not. That levels the playing field so those with more money cannot get more exposure, and those with no money can get none.
The rich have no problems getting their voice heard. None. It's disingenuous to pretend that placing restrictions on the wealthy will make their voice not heard. Restricting the volume of the megaphone does not silence a person.
The problem with the US system is that everything is treated as a commodity to be bought and sold, including opinions and votes. What little protection the little man had has been eroded, and he cannot get his voice out because his voice is drowned by the protected paid megaphones of the rich.
Go back and look at the rather obvious intent of the constitution and amendments. To protect the voice of the common man, so that those in power cannot silence him. Not to allow those with power to silence him by buying enough decibels that he can't be heard over the din, and that limiting the volume of the loudest is impeaching on their freedom.
A plane zipped overhead pulling a banner that read "YOU BROKE DEMOCRACY" and advertising Freedom From Facebook, ...
They don't understand how a corporation works or voluntary use of its free services work.
Pro Tip: You don't have to have a Facebook account and/or use their free services -- or, I'll add, own their stock..
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
It's rather simple - if money changes hands for the purpose of advertising politics, it's illegal. If no money changes hands, it's not. That levels the playing field so those with more money cannot get more exposure, and those with no money can get none.
does it? the wealthy own the media outlets.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They invested in Facebook without knowing where the money was going, or what it was doing. Some of them knew precisely what he was spending the money on (spying on people) and invested anyway. Now they want to cry about how they've been used, and blame it all on Zuckerfuck. But that's not how it works. They willfully contributed to evil, and now they're angry at Facebook for their being evil? Waaaaaaaaaa
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's rather simple - if money changes hands for the purpose of advertising politics, it's illegal. If no money changes hands, it's not. That levels the playing field so those with more money cannot get more exposure, and those with no money can get none.
Must not be simple, because I don't understand how this would work. Can the New York Times run a political op-ed? They pay different corporations for ink and paper, and to buy and maintain their presses. They pay a separate company to distribute the paper. Lot of money changing hands there.
Can Bezos buy the Washington Post and have it print his political views, or not?
Can I have a political channel on YouTube, or not? Does it matter whether I monetize?
Can I start a "think tank" and pay a "Fellow of the lgw Society" to go on CNN and spout my views in an interview, or not? I mean, I'm not telling them specially what to say, but I'm hiring people who agree generally with the politics of the "lgw Society".
Can I stand on the corner and spout my political views? What if I pay for bus fare to get there? What if someone else pays for my bus fare?
What if I record it and put it on YouTube for the ad revenue? What if I have Patreon sponsors who fund my channel, so this is my full time job: spouting the political views that a group of patrons like to hear?
The problem with the US system is that everything is treated as a commodity to be bought and sold,
Anything with reach beyond the sound of your voice requires commodities being bought and sold. You're trying to draw some line here, but I see no line, just a big blur.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Claims of howaboutism are just mindless sheep deflecting from their own hypocritical stands in the past when called out on them. It is a cheap and very weak rhetorical song n dance designed to dodge the point when you have no defense from the charge of being a hypocrite.
Yes.
People acting as a group have no rights. We have to take those rights to maintain rights for people acting alone.
Poe's Law in full effect here. But taking this as written, the First Amendment clearly says otherwise:
Congress shall make no law respecting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There's just no basis in the Constitution to argue that your rights as an individual are diminished when acting on concert with other individuals with those same rights. Meanwhile, it's a staple of totalitarian regimes that a group of people advocating for change is an illegal disruption of public order.
If the two of us together pool our money to buy an ad, then that should be illegal and we should be put in prison. That is collusion and conspiracy. However, it's fine for either one of us to buy an ad.
What about conjoined twins?
The New York Times is a publicly traded corporation, so not just a group of like-minded friends, but a group of strangers. Can it run political pieces, or not? Can it pay its distribution company to deliver papers containing political opinion, or not?
It's OK for one of the Koch brothers to buy the New York Times and have it print libertarian op-eds every day, but if they both buy it together, not OK?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Lots of democracies get by just fine with laws that regulate who can pay to influence election campaigns, and they seem to be much better democracies because of it.
Campaigning in the last US election cost 6.4 billion USD, or around 41 USD per registered voter.
Campaigning in the last UK election cost a total of 39 million GBP (0.05 billion USD), or around 1.15 USD per registered voter.
Interesting example. The UK looks to me like a totalitarian dystopia where a reporter espousing the wrong view gets dragged off the street, tried in secret, and convicted an imprisoned within 24 hours, then a gag order placed on the rest of the British media to prevent them from protesting or even mentioning the event. That's 2018 UK, though it reads like early 16th century UK, right down to the subject matter of criticizing the wrong religion.*
Is your view that the US system presented voters with a higher quality of information, allowing them to make a more informed choice as to their representatives and president? Do you feel that additional six billion dollars was well spent? Does the requirement for billion dollar campaigns not seriously undercut the fundamental principles of democracy?
I believe the US system makes its citizens more free, which is the end goal. Most adults in the US ignore all ads from long habit anyhow. Those who wish to be informed voters don't get their information from the TV. We both have the same internet after all (well, except for the secret list of sites the UK government doesn't let its people visit, of course.)
* OK, I'm blurring history a little bit here, as the Star Chamber was pretty much over by the time political violence started over religion. Bloody Mary didn't bother with the subtleties of secret trials, after all.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
As I said, you are a regressive and intellectually stagnant individual who bears the consequences of the roads your yourself choose to follow. To whine after the fact which could have been prevented with foresight and preemptive action born of wisdom, is a sign of how stunted you are and therefore how invalid your opinions are. You are not a victim of others, you are a victim of your own stupidity, much like a man who shoots himself in the foot isn't the victim of the gun seller but the victim of his own stupidity.
Own it and change yourself, grow up, or remain a stunted child in the body of an adult. Those are your choices. Those who can't bear the weight of self-responsibility don't deserve to be treated as adults, but must be treated as regressed retards in the body of one, this is your sin.
"I don't use Facebook" is the new "I don't own a TV".
Have you read my blog lately?
Zuckerberg Grilled At Angry Facebook Shareholder's Meeting
He should have held a Happy Facebook Shareholder's Meeting. That would have been so much better.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
How many of those indictments were related to the Trump Campaign or Russian collusion? HINT: it's a number less than 1.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
What I find most interesting are the attitudes being displayed. Take the "You broke democracy" person(s?), for instance. We can assume that this goes back to the alleged election tampering ... so my question is simply, had their candidate won, would they be screaming as loudly? Or are they merely upset at the outcome? Its all in the interest of swaying public opinion. Even the display of anger at facebook.
Personally I would have enjoyed Clinton in the White House again. Not that Clinton, the other one. I mean, while Bill was IN office he was diddling interns in the oval office. Can you imagine how off the chain he would have been in that building with no responsibility?
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte
hmm... that's like saying "stopping global warming" is the new "avoiding nuclear war". They're both fabulous ideas, for different reasons. Conflating them might work on your fb yes-men, but it won't work on me. :)
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Claims of howaboutism are just mindless sheep deflecting from their own hypocritical stands in the past when called out on them. It is a cheap and very weak rhetorical song n dance designed to dodge the point when you have no defense from the charge of being a hypocrite.
How's the weather in Moscow Ivan? Have you ever seen the inside of thr Black Dolphin? Now look Ivan, here's your problem with howaboutism. Let's say your favorite politician is accused of say - diddleing a little girl. I mention that he diddled a little girl, and you in a fine howaboutism dugeon, scream "Well how about Hillary and Pizzagate! Her and O'Blama diddled millions of children!"
Because by employing Howaboutism to defend your favorite politician by yelling that someone else did that, you are therefore exhonerating them along with your man.
It does the exact opposite of what you want Ivan!
You exonerate your enemy, Howabout that? Now take your rubles if they decide your troll was strong enough.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Take your company "public" and then you are at the mercy of the stockholders. As long as you are making them gobbs of money, they love you. Once they stock swings downward, they want you tossed out.
I don't watch TV. In fact, I don't even own one.
Determine is not the same as discuss. Americans can determine their own countries government, whilst the rest of the world discuss publicly the corruption at every level in US government, from political parties to local councils, corrupt as fuck. Clinton the corporate whore, the Shrub, Darth Cheney, Uncle Tom Obama the Choom Gang Coward, all are up for discussion, get the fuck over it.
The Thirteen Russian trolls thing was entirely bullshit, the ads were not ads at all, they were click bait, that led to pay per view ads, nothing more, no interest in affecting the election, just wanting people to click that ad that led to another ad.
Americans, you so full of shit, Texas bullshit, more shit that the rest of the world combine, exceptional bullshit for the exceptional country, ohhh fuck off.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Straw man.
That's nice. They're tracking you anyway, via all those obliquitous "like" and "share" buttons, and scanning your face in every third party picture that's been uploaded to their servers.
Stop. I see the problem, right there.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Possibly I will earn a troll batch, but lets state the facts, Cambridge Analytic is not a US company, as such, their involvement/influencing elections is against the law as far as I know (and lets not forget all the Moscow Propaganda Office advertising). In the U.S we can argue as much as we want, but a foreign entity influencing elections is against the law - period.
most people didn't expect their data to be weaponized.
They loaded my data into missiles and shot them at someone? This is a stupid word. I wish people would stop using it.
To put it another way: You deleted your FB.
Is that the case?
Gave it up years ago and never looked back. I have teenage kids who also don't use it, it's all Snapchat and Instagram these days.
most people didn't expect their data to be weaponized.
They loaded my data into missiles and shot them at someone? This is a stupid word. I wish people would stop using it.
We both know that not all weapons go boom or put holes in things.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
And Facebook keeps making buckets of money, How?
Don't get me wrong. I'm on Facebook, but my exposure to Facebook advertising in minimal, since only see individual posts which are the result of notifications. I literally never look at the newsfeed, nor visit much beyond my own pics. I am what Facebook must consider a bad user.
However I'm smart enough to know that Facebook is in business to make money and they aren't going to do anything that will disrupt that revenue stream, unless forced by law.
So I don't expect Facebook to do anything that is good for users, only things that are good for customers, the ad purchasers and buyers of their scavenged data.
They're tracking you anyway, via all those obliquitous "like" and "share" buttons
Not me. I've got my browser loaded with blockers and filters.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Yes, I am.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
... because it puts the target squarely on Zucky's back.
The shareholders are trying to do the right thing (for themselves).
Outside agitators are working it.
Internal staff and employees are making statements and taking action.
Zuckerberg controls the company through special stock that gives him more votes than other shareholders.
"Facebook said that just because the proposals were blocked, that didn't mean the company doesn't care about these issues."
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.