Facebook Offers Nearly 500 Pages of Answers To Congress' Questions From Zuckerberg's Testimony (washingtonpost.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Offers Nearly 500 Pages of Answers To Congress' Questions From Zuckerberg's Testimony (washingtonpost.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday June 12, 2018 @01:00AM from the read-em-and-weep dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Washington Post: Facebook pledged to continue refining its privacy practices and investigating its entanglement with Cambridge Analytica in nearly 500 pages of new information supplied to Congress and published Monday (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source) -- though the social giant sidestepped some of lawmakers' most critical queries. Much as it did during the hearing, Facebook told lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee that it is reviewing all apps available on its platform that had access to large queries of data, a process that already has resulted in 200 suspensions.

Facebook did acknowledge that its consultants embedded in 2016 presidential campaigns, including President Trump's team, "did not identify any issues involving the improper use of Facebook data in the course of their interactions with Cambridge Analytica." In another exchange, Facebook said it had provided "technical support and best practices guidance to advertisers, including Cambridge Analytica, on using Facebook's advertising tools." Facebook also pointed to new tools meant to address its privacy practices, including a feature called Clear History, which "will enable people to see the websites and apps that send us information when they use them, delete this information from their accounts, and turn off our ability to store it associated with their accounts going forward," the company said. The social network did continue to sidestep many of the lawmakers' questions and concerns. The Washington Post provides a couple examples: "Delaware Sen. Christopher A. Coons (Del.), for example, probed whether Facebook had ever learned of any application developer 'transferring or selling user data without user consent' and in violation of Facebook's policies. In response, Facebook only committed in writing that it would 'investigate all apps that it had access to large amounts of data.'"

Facebook also didn't address Democratic Sen. Patrick J. Leahy's concerns. He asked Facebook to detail if the Obama campaign in 2012 had violated "any of Facebook's policies, and thereby get banned from the platform." Facebook said: "Both the Obama and Romney campaigns had access to the same tools, and no campaign received any special treatment from Facebook."

You can view the nearly 500 pages of new information here.

62 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 01:09 · Score: 1

As I understand it, it was backlash from the discovery that the Obama campaign (among others) were able to access your data simply because a friend signed up that CAUSED the rule change that then made Cambridge Analytica doing the same thing to be against the rules. So the Obama campaign was allowed access under the 2012 rules, but then the rules were changed in 2015 due to public outcry, meaning that by 2016 Cambridge Analytica's identical use of the data was against the rules.
1. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  It was "against the rules" the same way that drinking is against the law on Sundays in Blue Counties.
  Everybody does it.
  Nobody gets mad, until That Guy that nobody likes is caught behind the woodshed with a bottle of moonshine.
  Then you get the sheriff making a show and all the good people turning away in hypocritical scorn.
2. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 01:35 · Score: 0
  
  Never mind that! I hear that they had creimer write the whole thing for 50$. Producing bullshit and crap amazingly quickly is about the only thing that he is able to do and since he is usually picking up used lottery tickets in the streets, 50$ is plenty of money to him.
3. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by jellomizer · 2018-06-12 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Also it isn't what you do, but how you do it.
  For the most part the Obama campaign was about bringing in voters to vote for him, while Cambridge Analytica was using the data to prevent people from voting for the opposition.
  Democracy is about people voting their opinions. Ideally everyone should be voting for good or for ill.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
4. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  Cryptofeces Lepidoptera Creimerus infestation is a serious problem. Not only are they capable of reproducing asexually like amoebas, they can also lay eggs hermaphroditically in unexpected places. They can disguise eggs as something useful to fool the unaware, sometimes pretending to be a haiku author, blogger, vlogger, or IT closet cleaner.
  Very dangerous. They can seemingly reproduce out of the cosmic background radiation, even if you step on twelve of them, there's always one you miss.
  Don't be fooled by the C. Lepidoptera Creimerus's innocuous, rolly-polly [youtube.com] [youtube.com], and almost friendly appearance; despite its great size, stupid demeanor, and bedraggled toothless appearance, they have the hardiness of a tardigrade.
  Only a concerted, targeted downmodding campaign has been shown effective in controlling this dangerous pest.
  Experience shows that stopping such a campaign leads to C. Lepidoptera Creimerus returning within days.
  Don't let it happen again!
5. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 01:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  As I understand it, it was backlash from the discovery that the Obama campaign (among others) were able to access your data simply because a friend signed up that CAUSED the rule change that then made Cambridge Analytica doing the same thing to be against the rules. So the Obama campaign was allowed access under the 2012 rules, but then the rules were changed in 2015 due to public outcry, meaning that by 2016 Cambridge Analytica's identical use of the data was against the rules.
  That's revisionist bullshit.
  There was no backlash/outcry about the Obama campaign's use of Facebook data.
  On the contrary, it was celebrated:
  Data You Can Believe In
  
  The Obama Campaign’s Digital Masterminds Cash In
  Earlier this year, senior members of President Barack Obama’s campaign team took a trip to Las Vegas. Nevada holds a special place in Obama-wonk lore as the place where his monthslong strategy of defeating Hillary Clinton by slowly and surely amassing delegates emerged. But the operatives were not there in March for any political reason. They were there to make money — specifically to land what they hoped would be the first corporate client for their new advertising business, Analytics Media Group (A.M.G.). Its bland name obscures its relatively grand promise: to deliver to commercial advertisers some of the Obama campaign’s secret, technologically advanced formulas for reaching voters.
  ...
  The "outrage" was manufactured by the same media that fawned over Obama's use of the same data - but only because the "wrong" guy won.
6. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  For the most part the Obama campaign was about bringing in voters to vote for him, while Cambridge Analytica was using the data to prevent people from voting for the opposition.
  So Obama's campaign was all about convincing people not to vote for his opposition, and Cambridge Analytica was ... the same thing? I fail to see how "bringing in voters to vote for you" is any different than "preventing people from voting for the opposition." By definition, if someone votes for you, you prevented them from voting for the opposition. That's how voting works. One person, one vote.
7. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by Ol+Olsoc · 2018-06-12 01:50 · Score: 0
  
  Also it isn't what you do, but how you do it. For the most part the Obama campaign was about bringing in voters to vote for him, while Cambridge Analytica was using the data to prevent people from voting for the opposition.
  Democracy is about people voting their opinions. Ideally everyone should be voting for good or for ill.
  Exactly. While the shills are braying about O'blama as somehow a crime dwarfing Cambridge Analytica's actions, it is telling that in a Republican controlled Congress, that is happy to spend money investigating and re-investigating "liberal crimes", that we're not investigating O'blama for this.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
8. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by ArchieBunker · 2018-06-12 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah Obama using Facebook data to win an election is fine https://www.theguardian.com/wo... Now that Trump did the same thing we need congressional hearings.
  
  --
  Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
9. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by DarkOx · 2018-06-12 02:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Ideally everyone should be voting for good or for ill.
  I strongly disagree with that statement. Democracy is about the people deciding how our nation will go forward. However before every election there is usually a set of questions that can be identified which will likely be decided by the next term of government. Frankly people should be 'responsible' in their voting. They should form whatever opinion they like and vote their conscience for sure but they also should:
  1) Know what the current issues are
  2) Know the policy options and where each candidate stands
  2a) Know something about the personal history of each candidate and decide if they are appropriate / qualified.
  3) Have some understanding of the basic facts around those issues.
  If they are not willing to do those things than no they should not vote. There are way to many people who just vote for their team - or vote for someone because someone else told them to do it. I don't think that constructively contributes to our societal decision making at all. In fact it actually just brings us nearer to mob rule. Its one of the BIG reasons I am opposed to early voting (not absentee just early) like it should have to be post marked near the date of the election. Early voting amounts to voting often before the all facts are in; it irresponsible!
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
10. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by datavirtue · 2018-06-12 02:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah...but you are not supposed to goad the rabble to the polls. Let the market sort it out. If people feel a need to go...they will go. If you have to convince people to vote they should not be voting.
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
11. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by datavirtue · 2018-06-12 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  1) Know what the current issues are (Same issues from 40 years ago)
  2) Know the policy options and where each candidate stands (Impossible, always changes on a dime....or a bag of them)
  2a) Know something about the personal history of each candidate and decide if they are appropriate / qualified. (Ugh...this reminds of people trying to hire. Generally really bad at it. Just flip a coin...you will do just as good if not better.)
  3) Have some understanding of the basic facts around those issues. (Where do you purport they get that information? Should they put 2-3 hours on their schedule each day?)
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
12. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by ISayWeOnlyToBePolite · 2018-06-12 02:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Oh yeah Obama using Facebook data to win an election is fine https://www.theguardian.com/wo... Now that Trump did the same thing we need congressional hearings.
  Thank you for summarizing the mindset that is so wrong with the US. Seemingly there are no issues that can be discussed without falling into partisanship.
13. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by arbiter1 · 2018-06-12 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  If there was Outrage over Obama doing it then more people would known they did it and not learned about after Cambridge thing came to light. I follow tech news pretty closely and i didn't even hear about it til after they made a stink about it helping trump win. Main Stream Moron's didn't even bat 1 word about it and even when bashing Cambridge over the matter they would gloss over fact Obama did it 4 years before like it never happened just as they glossed over fact CLINTON camp was doing exact same thing but no problem with her side doing it only 1 side.
14. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  it is doubleplusungood to be trying to take things out of the memory hole, comrade
15. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  There was no backlash/outcry about the Obama campaign's use of Facebook data.
  On the contrary, it was celebrated:
  As I recall, and I can't tell if that story fits or not because I have the NY Times blackholed, the fawning over Obama's data strategy kind of glossed over the use of Facebook. Instead it focused more on "look at how he uses technology to target voters!"
  But you're right, the outrage over "Facebook gave away my private data due to the actions of my friends" wasn't targeted at Obama's campaign. Obama's campaign was one of many sources that made people say "wait, what?" but when it blew up, the media very carefully framed it as a more generic outrage over the fact that Facebook was sharing this data without asking you.
16. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by jellomizer · 2018-06-12 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Being that we are in a two party system (which I do not like) the ability to make an intelligent well informed voting decision is often not possible.
  It normally comes down to. Is my life better or worse with this guy in office. If it is worse, then I vote against them, if it better then I vote for them.
  1) Knowing what the current issues are is the responsibility of the person who is running, not the voter. I have my own issues, and the person running for office, will be willing to address them, or not address them. I may have many issues, where different people will and will not address a set of them. So I need to figure what is more important to me to vote.
  2) Policy may not be a priority for the voter. Often the policy difference and change have little or no real effect, or their changes will balance themselves out. Say for example Free Market forces prevent companies from producing too crappy of a product, vs regulation telling the company not to produce a crappy product. Either way companies are not creating a crappy product. The difference comes down to either companies feeling the freedom to explore the idea that created the crappy product in the future to try something else, vs. giving the consumers comfort knowing that such crappy product will not be on the market.
  2a) While I agree that would pick who we feel is most qualified, but that is still a judgement call. While I found Trump campaign to be akin to a Hack Used Car Salesman, and his lack of depth in the issue made me feel that is unqualified to be president. Others see his success alone as a strong qualify factor. And being a leader of a large organization makes him more qualified then a career politicians who just do the same thing over again.
  3) I agree that there needs to be truth and unbiased fact checking. But with the current nature we have bias "news" media calling the opposing side as lairs. Making it difficult to try to make an informed decision. However it will come down to which lies we believe or just don't care about.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
17. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by squiggleslash · 2018-06-12 03:25 · Score: 2
  
  Your position is that they have a duty to not vote. The counter position is that they have a duty to vote, and thus a duty to get informed.
  I strongly support the counter position, and find the argument that discourages voting repellent.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
18. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by squiggleslash · 2018-06-12 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Obama and Romney had access to the same information and was obtained consensually. The information Trump's CA obtained was obtained under false pretenses. They're not in the same ballpark.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
19. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  There was no backlash/outcry about the Obama campaign's use of Facebook data.
  On the contrary, it was celebrated:
  As I recall, and I can't tell if that story fits or not because I have the NY Times blackholed, the fawning over Obama's data strategy kind of glossed over the use of Facebook. Instead it focused more on "look at how he uses technology to target voters!"
  But you're right, the outrage over "Facebook gave away my private data due to the actions of my friends" wasn't targeted at Obama's campaign. Obama's campaign was one of many sources that made people say "wait, what?" but when it blew up, the media very carefully framed it as a more generic outrage over the fact that Facebook was sharing this data without asking you.
  Not really.
  While the NY Times didn't draw attention to it, they didn't hide it, either:
  
  The campaign’s exhaustive use of Facebook triggered the site’s internal safeguards. “It was more like we blew through an alarm that their engineers hadn’t planned for or knew about,” said St. Clair, who had been working at a small firm in Chicago and joined the campaign at the suggestion of a friend. “They’d sigh and say, ‘You can do this as long as you stop doing it on Nov. 7.’ ” (Facebook officials say warning bells go off when the site sees large amounts of unusual activity, but in each case the company was satisfied the campaign was not violating its privacy and data standards.)
  Funny how Facebook says " the company was satisfied the campaign was not violating its privacy and data standards." after telling the Obama campaign "You can do this as long as you stop doing it on Nov. 7.".
20. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by houghi · 2018-06-12 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  If you only have two options, you do not have a democratic system, just like it is not a choice if the "Insurance Company" asks to break your left or your right leg after you coluntered to accept their protection for a fee.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
21. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  2a) Know something about the personal history of each candidate and decide if they are appropriate / qualified. (Ugh...this reminds of people trying to hire. Generally really bad at it. Just flip a coin...you will do just as good if not better.)
  Hey, this person served a WHOLE YEAR as a senator after a very short state political career, let's make him President!
22. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  No they didn't
  
  I never signed up with either campaign but my friends did, which authorized them to harvest my data as well.
23. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is people are stupid and easily led around by the nose. So now we are trying to dumb down the world so the simpletons can understand things.
  And Congress is the holy grail when it comes to a collection of morons owned by those that paid to put them in office. Facebook shouldn't waste any time kowtowing to a group of people who are incapable of understanding the issues surrounding the effects of social media platforms. Remember these are the same group of morons who create and approve the US Federal Budget when the majority of them are incapable of balancing their own checkbooks.
24. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  The difference is that Obama did it above-board and not in collusion with Russian nationals working on behalf of the Russian government/military/Putin to influence our elections, you fucking mongoloid.
25. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by farble1670 · 2018-06-12 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Main Stream Moron's didn't even bat 1 word about it and even when bashing Cambridge over the matter they would gloss over fact Obama did it 4 years before like it never happened
  Maybe you should ask yourself why your party leaders didn't expose these terrible injustices of the Obama camp? Why do you vote for these people that let these terrible crimes go completely unmentioned? They were pounding H for her email server but they couldn't even MENTION these awful, heinous crimes committed by Obama? Weird isn't it?
  Maybe you should ask why, now that your cronies own all 3 houses of government, there STILL isn't any investigation into Obama's terrible crimes? Explain please. Is it that even that you own all 3 houses of government, it's the Stonemasons, or the Knights Templar that are REALLY controlling the government and are blocking any prosecution of Obama's crimes?
26. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 09:59 · Score: 0
  
  "Current issues" and "basic facts" as defined by.... you? You fascist pig. As defined by everyone? GTFO you pinko commie scumbag. As defined by the individual voting? That sounds better.... but if they're the ones deciding what they ought to know, I don't imagine many people will declare they don't know about the issues that are important to them.
  But yeah, sure. They SHOULD know what they're doing. That'd be nice. But ANY sort of enforcement of that sentiment is bound to be used as a tool to disenfranchise voters. ANY! Hell, we can't even get the two parties to agree on just what a basic fact is anymore. Imagine you gave republicans the authority to write the test to see if people are eligible to vote. Right out of the gate, I'm betting it'd be written in English. And I wouldn't put it past them to ask questions like "Has the repeal of Network Neutrality A) Made your internet faster B) Lowered your ISP bill C) Made America Great Again."
  Democracy IS mob rule. Get used to it. If you don't like how the masses vote, then democracy might not be for you. It's a messy unrefined process prone to several vectors and rarely gets ideal rulers. Unfortunately every alternative is horrifyingly bad in the "millions dead and starving" sort of way.
  As for early voting, there's nothing that's going to happen within the span of a year that is going to change someone's political stance, that couldn't also happen any time during their term. Getting hit by a bus, getting caught with a dead girl or a live boy. The sort of last minute "revelations" are more likely to be political hit-jobs. Remember the Podesta emails? End-game tactics in politics is dirty. When you look at a candidate, you should be looking at how they've lived, not whatever way their flag has blown at the last minute. That takes decades.
  Seriously, stop trying to control who gets to vote.
27. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 10:03 · Score: 0
  
  On the flip side.... oh ick, career politicians....
28. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 10:42 · Score: 0
  
  The outrage was from the same people that fawned over Obama's use of (not quite) the same data - Because
  instead of using social media to adverteize Obama's campaign with the same sort of political ads you'd see on TV, it was used to to push anonymous propoganda. It wasn't advertised as being paid for by a PAC or the Trump campaign. And it spouted lies and bullshit. (More so than vague campaign promises usually are).
  It's the difference between a company doing business, and a system of shell corporation performing anti-competitive practices.
29. Re:Obama's campaign caused the rule changes by ArchieBunker · 2018-06-13 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  Wait so where do the Russians fall into the Cambridge Analytics scandal? My understanding is Russia bought $300k of Facebook advertising, which is a drop in the bucket.
  
  --
  Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Reader's Digest condensed reply needed. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 01:10 · Score: 0

A 1 or 2 page answer is all that's needed. Anything else is very suspect of being a diversionary, delaying tactic by FaceBook.
1. Re:Reader's Digest condensed reply needed. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  This is the same Congress that couldn't be bothered to read the Obamacare bill before they passed it, do you really think they are going to sit down and wade through 500 pages of Facebook BS?
2. Re:Reader's Digest condensed reply needed. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 01:23 · Score: 0
  
  If it was just 1 or 2 pages we'd be hearing cries of "they don't take this serious, they're not providing any answers". Politicians and journalists aren't out for answers. They're out for blood.
3. Re:Reader's Digest condensed reply needed. by syn3rg · 2018-06-12 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  This is the same Congress that wasn't allowed to read the Obamacare bill before they passed it...
  FTFY
  
  --
  The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
"concern" by cascadingstylesheet · 2018-06-12 01:11 · Score: 2

Facebook also didn't address Democratic Sen. Patrick J. Leahy's concerns. He asked Facebook to detail if the Obama campaign in 2012 had violated "any of Facebook's policies, and thereby get banned from the platform." Facebook said: "Both the Obama and Romney campaigns had access to the same tools, and no campaign received any special treatment from Facebook."

Leahy's "concern" is clearly to try to exonerate the Obama campaign and get the "Trump used teh (now) evil Facebook data slurping" weapon back.
1. Re:"concern" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  Trump voter identified!
2. Re:"concern" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  You realize you sound very much like Soviet Commissar identifying political dissident, neh, comrade?
3. Re:"concern" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  You do realize you sound like a pretentious cunt?
4. Re:"concern" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  Don't like what you see when a mirror is held up? Then make changes in yourself. Getting mad at others for pointing out the truth is both childish and foolish.
5. Re:"concern" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  I only see schoolyard bickering all the way up this discussion thread.
6. Re:"concern" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  Sure. Run with that false equivalence if it lets you sleep at night.
It's bullshit, but some of it might even be true! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 01:21 · Score: 0

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
500 pages of bullshit.
500 pages? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 01:45 · Score: 0

That's a lot of pages to say, 'We didn't know, or we didn't do it.', when they most certainly did know and did it very consciously. They are just embarrassing themselves at this point. Zuck off, Facebook, what many of us have perceived for years has finally gone mainstream. I hope you can find a decent buyer over the next few years like AOL and other shark jumpers have.
Snow them in by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 01:52 · Score: 0

The technique used by Spybook here is obvious. Congress asks a few simple, very specific questions and they return with and entire book. When in doubt, snow them in with an entirely new problem -- a mountain of bullshit to comb through.
1. Re:Snow them in by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 01:57 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps that's because FB's lawyers are paid by the word. More words, more pay. And hey -- who at FB is going to complain since "TL;DR" helps their cause?
Killogram! by vladimir.sakharuk · 2018-06-12 02:26 · Score: 1

Israel offered 3 tonnes of documents on Iran nuclear program. Ukraine offered more 100 kilograms of documents on Russia involvement in Donbas. and what? Facebook? just 500 pages? That is not enough!
Zooming Out by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 02:39 · Score: 0

500 pages is kind of a big chunk of detail for someone who never joined yet is probably on Facebook anyways. Because fuck you dumb fucks.
I think I would rather view some of NASA's recently released satellite footage to get a bigger picture of life.
I started Facebook in my garage by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 03:27 · Score: 0

500 pages of hot air. Some people need to go to jail already. But what will probably happen is lawmakers will get their "cut" and it'll be business as usual.
And Zuckerberg is like: by Qbertino · 2018-06-12 04:33 · Score: 1

"My hearing wasn't a nothing-sandwich. THIS is a nothing-sandwich! ..... Aaaaahahahaha ... Chew on it!"

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Such a distraction!! by Shotgun · 2018-06-12 05:03 · Score: 1

WHO CARES!?!
So, Facebook knows I got married and she took a selfie of the two of us at the lake.
Meanwhile, the credit rating companies have a record of nearly every credit card purchase I've ever made. You could even have a "credit report" even if you've NEVER bought anything on credit. I bet most of you didn't know that the credit card companies sells your purchase information to their "partners". The contracts you signed gives them permission. The "partners" are the same companies that are stripping Facebook data.
Leave Facebook alone until you're ready to attack the REAL data thieves. The only reason they are attacking Facebook is because the company is cash rich, and is not yet paying enough in "lobbying" fees.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
1. Re:Such a distraction!! by serviscope_minor · 2018-06-12 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  this is whataboutism.
  Stop comparing to other things. Is it OK what Facebook is doing Y/N?
  If the answer to that is N then congress is fine going after them. You can't make the world better all at once, and chasing after perfection means you'll never get anywhere.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Only 2 questions I want Zuckerberg to answer: by Rick+Schumann · 2018-06-12 06:26 · Score: 1

1. Why shouldn't we just throw your worthless ass in jail forever and forget you exist?
2. Why shouldn't we shut down Facebook for good and burn every last scrap of it to the ground?
1. Re:Only 2 questions I want Zuckerberg to answer: by Krishnoid · 2018-06-12 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  2. A: Because the only people more square than those still using Facebook, are the ones who want destroy it because they think they're remedying a social ill. "Like, Facebook is what my *parents* still use."
2. Re:Only 2 questions I want Zuckerberg to answer: by Rick+Schumann · 2018-06-12 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  The only people more square than that are the ones who actually unironically believe that Facebook and all other so-called 'social media' is somehow not a malignant cancer on our civilization.
3. Re:Only 2 questions I want Zuckerberg to answer: by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  The only people more square than that, are the people that disagree with me and my opinion.
4. Re:Only 2 questions I want Zuckerberg to answer: by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody asked your opinon faggot, stfu
500 pages of information. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-06-12 06:57 · Score: 0

If it is 500 pages then I am pretty sure there is zero information in it. Information does not need that much space, only non-information does.