Slashdot Mirror


The Expensive Education of Mark Zuckerberg and Silicon Valley (nytimes.com)

Kara Swisher, writing for The New York Times: I kept pressing Mr. Zuckerberg on how he personally felt about the damage his creation had done. [Editor's note: Ms. Swisher is referring to her recent interview with Mark Zuckerberg.] Was he beginning to understand the power that he held, and that the world that he controlled was not such a rosy place? Facebook was "probably," he admitted, "too focused on just the positives and not focused enough on some of the negatives." Fair enough. But it was impossible to get him to acknowledge any personal pain as both the creator and the destroyer. "I mean, my emotion is feeling a deep sense of responsibility to try to fix the problem," said Mr. Zuckerberg. "In running a company, if you want to be innovative and advance things forward, I think you have to be willing to get some things wrong. But I don't think it is acceptable to get the same things wrong over and over again."

It was a classic Silicon Valley engineer's roll-up-your-sleeves answer, which leaves many cold when it comes to, say, the manipulation of democracy. Fending off bad actors like the Russians has been and will be increasingly expensive; it may even be impossible. But Facebook could have done much more than it did, and it certainly needs to do more than it's doing. Mr. Zuckerberg is now trying to fend off talk in Washington of regulating his company like the thing he once told me it was: a utility. He has also spent the last month meeting over dinners with a range of academic experts on free speech, propaganda and more to try to understand where to go from here. Call it the education of Mark Zuckerberg and Silicon Valley, but on the world's dime. How much that has -- and will -- cost is probably immeasurable.

155 comments

  1. Silicon Valley is full of retards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe there are some talented people there but mostly they are all retards who shove things up their ass to see if they fit

    1. Re:Silicon Valley is full of retards by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The problem is that they are not shoving those things up their own asses, we wouldn't complain so much if they did. The problem is that they try that on our asses, despite being the far greater assholes.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Jail Zuckerberg or destroy Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    His shallow denial of culpability doesn't change his legal responsibility for control. Facebook itself must be destroyed if it can't be controlled.

    1. Re:Jail Zuckerberg or destroy Facebook by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I'm no fan of Zuckerberg to say the least.

      But look, it *is* just an internet company. No one HAS to join or participate in FB, it is voluntary.....and you are generally free to tell too much about yourself on there for others to see, and.....it is your own damned fault if you as a user get too caught up in it, and start to believe everything you read or hear on there, you know?

      I don't see him needing to feel "guilty" about anything personally....he didn't do anything wrong that I can see, he just created a company, and made money at it....there's nothing "moral" about that, just business.

      If people don't like FB or how it works, they are free to leave.

      I'd just say the govt's involvement in FB would be best served by making sure that when a person leaves FB, ALL of their info is wiped upon request.

      Other than that, let them have it....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Jail Zuckerberg or destroy Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not Zuckenburg's fault that people use his creation to cause problems. When are the individual users ever going to take responsibility for their own actions? We need to stop this march towards creating a nanny state because the citizens refuse to act responsible for their actions. The last thing we need is more fucking government regulations and laws to "protect" the public. The reporter who wrote this story is a good example of today's journalists who stoke the fires of conflict.

    3. Re:Jail Zuckerberg or destroy Facebook by x0 · · Score: 1

      But look, it *is* just an internet company. No one HAS to join or participate in FB, it is voluntary.....and you are generally free to tell too much about yourself on there for others to see

      At face value that's a true statement. Realistically, more people use FB than are aware of that fact. I use NoScript, and most pages I visit have a FB script running[0]... well, trying to run. I block that shite.

      How many 'just plain folks', not on FB, and not using a script blocker/tracker blocker have data about their web habits on FB?

      I doubt we'll ever know the true extent of FB tracking...

      m

      [0] To be fair, *lots* of companies piggyback scripts and trackers, so FB isn't alone in this creepy regard.

      --
      In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
    4. Re:Jail Zuckerberg or destroy Facebook by godel_56 · · Score: 1

      I'm no fan of Zuckerberg to say the least.

      I'd just say the govt's involvement in FB would be best served by making sure that when a person leaves FB, ALL of their info is wiped upon request.

      Even the data from all the Russian trolls?

    5. Re:Jail Zuckerberg or destroy Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's good to place more focus on the ones doing the manipulation than on the ones being manipulated.

      And I assume the major players are a lot closer to home than Russia.

    6. Re:Jail Zuckerberg or destroy Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm no sure blocking scripts is enough. I've got most of facebook blocked in my host file (No doubt they have other domains I don't know about)

  3. Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All facebook is doing is letting stupid people be stupid.
    This just exposes how dumb the average person is and how stupidly they make decisions on who to vote for.
    Also, it was never proven that the Russians have had *any* impact on the outcome of the election.
    So what damage are we talking about exactly?
    What damage has facebook done?
    Conspiracy nuts have always existed. Racists have always existed. Election propaganda has always existed.
    Remember when the president of Mexico told americans not to vote for Trump?
    Why isn't he arrested for election hacking?

    1. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At this point I'm resigned to this "russia did it" stupidity. They're committed to it and the solution is to ignore them and keep winning elections until they get a clue.

    2. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course, it is this sort of stupidity that leads to war.

      But this time, it'll be with thermonuclear weapons.

      Truly the ultimate tantrum.

    3. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would Russia or some other country *LIKE* to influence an election in the U.S.? Would they *TRY* to influence an election? Absolutely, yes.

      But did they? No.

      Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than Donald Trump. That's some pretty lousy and incompetent "interfering in an election". And Trump only won due to a fluke in our electoral system that neither the Russians, nor anyone else, predicted.

      The whole "Russia hacked our election" is complete bullshit, being pushed by a bunch of sore losers who can't admit the truth -- Democrats would have won in a landslide if they hadn't chosen the worst candidate in the history of the Democratic party.

    4. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We survived decades of "evil empire" mentality while armed with nukes; MAD is still in effect. Trump has demonstrated that he has no intention of treating Russia in a hostile manner based on the "russia did it" narrative, much to the profound disappointment of the NYT et al. Also, when the pendulum eventually swings back the other direction and the US federal government is under (D) control again the "russia did it" narrative will instantly evaporate.

      So you can climb down now; this nonsense isn't going to lead to WWIII.

    5. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... furthermore, if this country *really* values free speech, why *shouldn't* the russians be allowed to speak?

      free speech should be free no matter how ignorant the fucktard is that's speaking

      the *real* problem would seem to be that the country is majority fucktard and they all gravitate to facebook.

    6. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      a fluke in our electoral system

      It's not a fluke. It's deliberate design. The system is intentionally biased against large states. Rhode Island has two senators, for example. All the deliberate rounding errors, from the distribution of representatives to the structure of the electoral college, have this same bias. The superhuman wisdom of our founders is why NY and CA don't yet have tyrannical control over this country.

    7. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude go see a therapist. Get help.

    8. Re:Stupid by sexconker · · Score: 1

      And Trump only won due to a fluke in our electoral system that neither the Russians, nor anyone else, predicted.

      It's not a fluke. It's a feature. It's by design. This is a union of states.

      Further, many people did predict it. They were laughed at and ridiculed, but they were correct.

      I myself thought Trump had no fucking chance. I thought Wolf Blitzer was going to have a short night as Hillary was going to be crowned faster than any other President. Nope! To watch it all slowly unfold, and to watch the news anchors admit to it even more slowly, was bizarre. Imagine being a fly on the wall in Hillary's dugout as it happened. Hell, she couldn't even come out and face her supporters to concede (not that I would have expected her to have a speech ready). She sent her lackey out to mumble about this going on into the night, so please go home.

      I expected Trump's victory speech to mirror Sideshow Bob's - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... .

    9. Re:Stupid by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seems to me you wouldn't pass your own proposed "emotional/mental stability testing" and you wouldn't be allowed to vote.

    10. Re:Stupid by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Electoral college would function like that if electoral college votes were proportional. Our current system gives the most leverage to the states that are large, but not firmly controlled by either party.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    11. Re:Stupid by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you need some of that "emotional/mental stability testing" before you are allowed to post again?

    12. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All facebook is doing is letting stupid people be stupid.
      This just exposes how dumb the average person is and how stupidly they make decisions on who to vote for.
      Also, it was never proven that the Russians have had *any* impact on the outcome of the election.
      So what damage are we talking about exactly?
      What damage has facebook done?
      Conspiracy nuts have always existed. Racists have always existed. Election propaganda has always existed.
      Remember when the president of Mexico told americans not to vote for Trump?
      Why isn't he arrested for election hacking?

      You're right, but there's a greater level of stupid you might be missing here. The other level of stupid is the ability to perpetuate a fiction that Trump stole the election through collusion with the Russians.

      Let's just be clear. Did the Russians buy ads to influence the election? Yes; I don't need proof to show that because the ads are easy to buy and it's in their interest to influence the election (and Putin and Clinton do not get along) so they would do so. Did it swing the election? No. You don't need to prove that because the people claiming Russian influence swung the election can't even hint at what electoral college votes swung towards Trump due to influence; it's not like a Bush/Gore scenario where it would have made a difference.

      No, the Facebook thing and the Russian collusion thing is just a straw man to perpetuate a fiction by the Democrats and the various organizations who lean that way to explain how they could have lost to Trump. Which is sad, because it blinds them to what they should be doing: figuring out why they lost to Donald Trump of all people.

      Quite honestly, the Democrat party is in serious trouble. They rigged their Primary election so Clinton would win over Sanders, and then Clinton, a career politician with mountains of experience, lost the election. In a normal world, Clinton would have trounced Trump by such a wide margin that no outside actor could influence it, which says that the world and public opinion is NOT normal. But instead of figuring out why it's not normal anymore and adapting their message, they're creating villains and fictional scenarios about evil Russian spies and media manipulation. It's really pathetic.

    13. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh that's probably "Rick Schumann". He is a very emotional about these politicals.
      Very sensitive about political

    14. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our current system gives the most leverage to the states that are large, but not firmly controlled by either party.

      How the electors vote (winner take all etc.) on behalf any given state is a matter of state law. Federal law — the constitution in particular — implements the bias against large states. The fact that large states have "lost" is several recent presidential elections (Bush - 2000, Trump - 2016) is a consequence of this.

    15. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      a fluke in our electoral system

      It's not a fluke. It's deliberate design. The system is intentionally biased against large states. Rhode Island has two senators, for example. All the deliberate rounding errors, from the distribution of representatives to the structure of the electoral college, have this same bias. The superhuman wisdom of our founders is why NY and CA don't yet have tyrannical control over this country.

      It's not about large states, it's about culture, specifically urban/city culture vs. rural/farm culture. Nations are built on their ability to produce as much food as possible with the fewest people, as it then frees up people to focus on other things like building Facebook. If votes were proportional to individuals, then eventually as the wealth of the nation increases the backbone of every nation, it's agrarian sector, would get it's voice diminished more and more. This is how nations fall, when the balance of power between the urban class and the rural class falls out.

      The system is designed to continue to give a voice to the important but ever diminishing minority of the rural class, and that major cities like LA and New York, who's life and culture are very different than the mid-West breadbasket, cannot completely dominate the nation's political structure.

    16. Re:Stupid by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Also, it was never proven that the Russians have had *any* impact on the outcome of the election.

      It hasn't been proven, but there is evidence.

      Remember when the president of Mexico told americans not to vote for Trump?
      Why isn't he arrested for election hacking?

      He's free to have and openly express an opinion; he's not free to surreptitiously manipulate opinion through deception.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Stupid by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      The superhuman wisdom of our founders is why NY and CA don't yet have tyrannical control over this country.

      The typical political wisdom of our founders is why wealthy white males still have tyrannical control over this country. That's how they set the system up, and although some of the structures they emplaced to achieve that end have been removed, inertia continues to guarantee that situation today.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re: Stupid by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Please stop using homophobic slurs you obnoxious fascist.

    19. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But wealthy white males are demonstrably superior to every other demographic on Earth when it comes to organizing and running large organizations, including nation-states (among many other endeavors). Thatâ(TM)s why they were in charge in the first place.

    20. Re:Stupid by MoaDweeb · · Score: 1

      This is why I like the Westminster parliamentary system at times. A 'tard like Trump would not survive the years of backbencher work required to get to be leader, just like Boris Johnson. Oh, wait...

      I suppose I will have to rely on the intelligence of my fellow voters, a scary proposition.

      --
      New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
    21. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it was never proven that the Russians have had *any* impact on the outcome of the election.

      I still don't understand that - I must be slow to an extreme.

      Far as I understand what the talking heads on the news are trying to tell me, the Russians used Facebook to push out propaganda.

      I was not aware propaganda, no matter how effective, was even illegal. Is the claim suggesting that people are too fucking dumb to recognize it for what is it?

    22. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton wanted Trump, and thought she could beat him;

      http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/

      https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3990

      https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails//fileid/1120/251

      In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more “Pied Piper” candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:
        Ted Cruz
        Donald Trump
        Ben Carson
      We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously.

    23. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why do we only talk about Russia using FaceBook? What about other groups looking to disrupt the US like North Korea, China or even La Raza? None of this is new, it is called propaganda and has been happening since the first time two people tried to convince a group of others to follow them. The only difference now is that the mediums exist to make it cheaper and easier. Anyone ever heard of Tokyo Rose, or Radio Free Cuba or Radio Free Iraq? How about the House UnAmerican Activities Committe, Joseph McCarthy or Lenin's useful idiots?

      The only difference this time around is that too many sheeple get their information from these platforms instead of researching for themselves, are willing to believe without question that their queen had her election stolen because there is just absolutely no way the rest of the country would have been willing to give that Brooklyn Builder the job without interference.

      But look carefully at the core group of those committing the violence and marching and screaming about election meddling - they're mostly young, 30's or younger. They don't remember the cold war because Reagan ended it. Many probably never heard of the Cuban missile crisis. Hell I'm willing to guess most didn't even know that technically we're still in a state of war with North Korea, we're just in a cease fire.

      They enjoy instant gratification toys and entertainment that exists because of capitalism and yet think that socialism is what we should have, but ask them to provide a single case of true socialism being successful they can't answer, because it never has been.

      Oh sure, they'll point to a small country like Sweden or Norway and say they are socialist, but show them Venezuela and "oh well that's different". Just look at the man-on-the-street videos where a group of these useful idiots were talking about the horrible pick for SCOTUS, how they had looked at his record and he was a racist before the pick was even announced.

      They've grown up in a culture where they've been told they're all brilliant, here's your participation trophy, where they watch idiotic television shows with 20 somethings getting major roles at companies and jet setting all around the world, then they hit the real world and find out you have to earn the corner office and sorry Johnny your social justice degree isn't worth a damn. Get some skills then apply later.

      And Johnny then protests having to pay off the debt he accrued to go to school and get his worthless degree, claiming it isn't fair he has to pay it back when he has no skills and can't get the corner office.

      We have a couple of generations now that can vote who get their news from Comedy Central and FaceBook and Twitter, who think that $32.6 trillion dollars is acceptable to give everyone Medicare even if it required doubling all individual and corporate taxes. Why should they care, few of them have had to hold down real jobs and pay real taxes, cover mortgages and utilities, because mommy and daddy still support them, still pay for their vacations, so for them, two times zero is zero.

      And let's be clear here, this is the ultimate goal of all of our enemies, not just Russia. They all know it isn't possible to defeat the US militarily, we have the capacity to wipe them all off the planet if we needed to. So the plan since the days of Khrushchev has been to destroy the US from the inside, and by god it appears they're finally going to be successful. And don't be fooled, it isn't just the folks like Russia and China, it is also the Muslims who want to destroy all of Christendom. So flooding Europe with refugees and flooding the US with asylum seekers, none of who are willing to assimilate into the local culture, is one and the same thing.

      I'd thought that perhaps the only way to save the US was to break it up, like California has talked about doing, but the end result of that would be that the conservative portion would end up being surrounded by weaker liberal or ethnic enclaves and if the c

    24. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The President isn't the representative of the people, the House is. The President is the representative of the sovereign States. The States get to decide how their primary representative is selected. Because they choose to allow the State's citizens to vote doesn't mean they are required to. The State's could setup their selection process to say the Governor will select the electors and that is legal.

      So it doesn't mean a damn if Hillary got 3 million more individual votes than Trump, what matters is that Trump received 304 to Hillary's 227 electoral votes. So Trump did get the most votes of those whose votes actually count, the States. Don't forget there was a big push by many on the left to get the electors to switch their votes so those people that keep spouting this popular vote crap know full well that doesn't mean a damn thing. They just keep repeating that to keep the useful idiots riled up.

    25. Re:Stupid by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      What we really need is basic IQ testing and emotional/mental stability testing before we allow anyone to vote.

      It can be simpler than that.
      Make the ballot a list of offices with blank boxes to fill in the names. Yes. Just leave all the names off. If the voter can not be bothered to learn enough about a candidate to be able to spell their friggin' NAME, then that voter does not deserve the opportunity to vote. PERIOD.

      Call it a poll tax if you want, but I will always assert that some level of civic involvement and commitment should be required to have a say in selecting our leaders.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    26. Re:Stupid by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      They didn't do it though. We know that they don't influence the election. They make the loser feel as if they were cheated. That's exactly what they did with Hillary and that's exactly what they would have done if Trump lost. Stupid people are out there protesting, they don't even know they're doing what the Russians are telling them to do.

      I mean come on. Women are separated from their children every day in every country in the world as they go to jail when they commit crimes. Why should illegals that break US law coming into the country be different? So they wrapped up a lie into a moral argument and people were too stupid to realize it.

  4. In other words... by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

    Or a Billion Dollars.

    Or gets called out for doing something they believe and would rather no one knew.

    Or gets called out for doing something they would never ever accept if it were done to them.

    Mark, welcome to the real real world, where you can indeed lose everything, and have no one else to blame but yourself. You are not too big to fail.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:In other words... by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      (To rickb928)

      you left out ...and this is your wake-up call.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  5. If not for Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The world would not know the deep state exists, and needs to be extinguished with all due haste. The George Clooneys and the Hillary Clinton child sex rings, and demonic worship, needed to be exposed. We are safer. Stronger. Trump is the light. Worship his light.

  6. Force by JBMcB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is anyone forcing you to use Facebook? Is using Facebook required to accomplish any task or job? Are there not alternatives to Facebook?

    No?

    Then WHO CARES.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be amazed to see how much information Facebook has on people who have never used Facebook. Everyone is involved in this, whether they know it or not.

    2. Re:Force by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Never had a job offer where you're supposed to send your resume through Facebook? Or seen companies offer certain deal only via Facebook, or only accept logins by Facebook (or Twitter, yeah, great alternative)?

      If you don't use it, you really start to notice such things...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be amazed to see how much information Facebook has on people who have never used Facebook. Everyone is involved in this, whether they know it or not.

      Mainly because other people freely provide that information to Facebook, in the same way your mother's coworkers probably know some surprising things about you.

    4. Re:Force by ole_timer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      sounds like a job offer to turn down

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    5. Re:Force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never had a job offer where you're supposed to send your resume through Facebook? Or seen companies offer certain deal only via Facebook, or only accept logins by Facebook (or Twitter, yeah, great alternative)?

      If you don't use it, you really start to notice such things...

      No. This must be rare, and likely getting even rarer given the current firestorm surrounding Facebook.

    6. Re:Force by JBMcB · · Score: 4, Informative

      Never had a job offer where you're supposed to send your resume through Facebook?

      Yes. I've never had to submit my resume through Facebook. Always through email. I don't know anyone who has had to submit their resume through Facebook.

      Or seen companies offer certain deal only via Facebook, or only accept logins by Facebook (or Twitter, yeah, great alternative)?

      I've never seen Facebook only deals. I've seen email offers that are duplicated on Facebook, but never the other way around.

      Every website I've seen that has had the option to log in using Facebook (or Twitter, or Google) has also had the option to create a local account, which is what I do.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    7. Re:Force by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Never had a job offer where you're supposed to send your resume through Facebook? Or seen companies offer certain deal only via Facebook, or only accept logins by Facebook (or Twitter, yeah, great alternative)?

      If you don't use it, you really start to notice such things...

      I've seen the deal thing - i have a twitter account that exists solely for amazon giveaways.

      The job thing, I've never seen before. It's always either through email or through their HR job site.

    8. Re:Force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't use it, ever. I set up a Facebook account years ago (2009?) just so I could get pics from my sister. That stopped in 2016 when she stopped using Facebook; then I stopped using Facebook. Not a single log on in over 2 years. None, and I mean none, of my over 100+ "internet" accounts are linked to Facebook, and I've never had to use a site that forced me to login via Facebook. If it did, I didn't use it and went elsewhere.

      Long story short, I have a very happy, and useful, online life without Facebook.

    9. Re: Force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not at all, itâ(TM)s mainly through partner and affiliate tracking which is on over 96% of US sites according to facebooks own numbers

      Every site you visit logs and hands over your info if it has Facebook tracking. You donâ(TM)t need to have ever had an account. If you have a reddit account then Facebook knows most of your info, same for twitter, etc. Basically if the site you are on has a Facebook share, like or feed button anywhere then the site is handing over your info

    10. Re: Force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only from startups that didnâ(TM)t understand what they were doing and every single one of them was bust within 12 months of offering me a position

      If you see a job like that it should set alarm bells ringing in your head that something is not right about the job or the people involved

      If it doesnâ(TM)t set alarm bells ringing then you are already brainwashed

    11. Re:Force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Never had a job offer where you're supposed to send your resume through Facebook?

      No. I am an engineer and I used to use Facebook daily, until about 2 years ago, and I never once saw a company ask for a resume submission via Facebook, and I'd bet $500 that the few that do are smart enough to have submissions through email, AngelList, and all the other normal, professional channels.

      Or seen companies offer certain deal only via Facebook

      I.E. Encourage you to spend money while also gathering your personal info ... Isn't this a big part of The Problem?

      or only accept logins by Facebook (or Twitter, yeah, great alternative)?

      Tinder did. Then they wised up that young people aren't on FB and now you can create an account with a phone #.

      If you don't use it, you really start to notice such things...

      Actually, since being off FB, I don't notice all FOMO stuff, which is exactly why I got off it.

    12. Re:Force by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Never had a job offer where you're supposed to send your resume through Facebook?

      Nope, I've never had anything to do with a job (working one, getting one, etc) that involved Facebook or any other form of social media.

      I've had no problems accessing anything I needed to without a FB or Twitter logon......

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:Force by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      sounds like a job offer to turn down

      That, sir, is a statement made from a position of privilege. Plenty of people need a job, any job, so that they do not become homeless. It's easy to say "well, they should have saved some money" but the corollary is that plenty of people have never made enough money to save any significant amount, nor do they have family or friends who can and/or will help them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Force by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      no one, including near or homeless, is forced to use facebook - they merely think that they are. it's my privilege to go somewhere else. choices.

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    15. Re:Force by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You might be in a position where you can turn a job offer down. Many people are not.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Force by antdude · · Score: 1

      Ditto here since early 2015.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    17. Re:Force by mrwireless · · Score: 1

      That's like saying nobody is forced to use a mobile phone.

      Social pressure, and the need to belong, is a real force in society.

      Also, whether 'compulsory' or not, billions of people use Facebook. That makes it something we all should care about understanding.

      Also, no, there are no real alternatives to Facebook, as the most important feature of any social network is "are my friends there".

  7. Re:They have something in common by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's more that they keep fucking up and that everyone else has to foot the bill for their blunders.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Not just facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes facebook basically took a blind eye to this but it is not necessarily their fault. It is the Marketing/Online Ad industry's greed that lead to this problem. They allow anyone with a "cash" to display ads. It doesn't matter if it is for legit reasons like porn ads, gun ads, selling a home ads, etc. It is all the same. Fake news, or some would could say satire news is basically the same because people paid for those to be displayed. The big target is facebook because they didn't try to stop damaging fake news or propaganda. However they are not the only ones, the whole online market space would have the same problem. It's just that facebook is a bigger target and they should have had more filters in place to slow down this stuff but they didn't because they saw dollar signs.

  9. He may be an asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But he is not a Leftard.

    So, he's not that bad.

  10. never ending wmd on credit holycost never ends? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    talk about #s, est. 100 million natives were murdered while being discovered by us.. population maintained around 1 million ever since.. we go on like it never happened, while being required to mourn other less horrid stories of our history of hysteria.. we're all natives now.. cease fire stand down.. like bruce says; if it's not fair for everyone, it's not fair for anyone.. truth+mercy=justice.. (leaves the violent punishment 'feature' out) turd flinging is as violent as we should ever get.. phewww

  11. working as intended by cats-paw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ultimately that's the problem.

    Facebook is a data harvesting engine designed for maximum privacy violation.

    It is designed to make money off the flow of information regardless of whether it is "true" or not.

    There is far too much information to censor it reliably, and censorship carries it's own set of problems.

    About the best they can do is go after fake accounts who's whole purpose is to relay false infomation. But that will be an arms race and FB will be behind most of the time.

    Ultimately, they will make decisions based on the money they are making and will do whatever is legal. He's only worried about reputation as it directly affects the bottom line, which can be a little difficult to gauge.

    --
    Absolute statements are never true
  12. Educate the People? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sounds like a people problem if Russia's campaign is credited for so easily enhancing the divisive environment created by our bipartisan political system. Most important part of education is learning how to educate yourself. Obviously a majority did not do that; now they are all credited as victims regardless. MERRICA!

  13. Re:Notice how Russia... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't you love it when everything's back to normal? Us old folks who remember the good ol' days of the 70s and 80s were kinda miffed at those newfangled enemies. The only boogeyman that could hold a candle to the Russians were the terrorists, and they were kinda bland. Faceless, nameless, not something you could point at. The Russians were different. You knew where they were, you didn't have to wage war with them and lose young guys, but the cold war kept the military industrial complex well funded. Perfect war, great for the economy and nobody has to die.

    Far better than that war with the terrorists where people actually get killed.

    Plus, the Russians never sent anyone to our country, neither to blow shit up nor as refugees. They even made sure that everyone stayed where they belonged.

    Yes, I long for our old, beloved enemies. It's good to see that they're coming back in style.

    Could we phase out those other ones, those terrorists? I mean, we don't really need them now anymore, now that the Russians want to play again, and they get kinda pesky. Plus, they're SO completely nuts that our government doesn't have to pretend to be the good guys with them. That's something the Russians always managed to do really well for us.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Describes Most Leaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most people who lead large organizations of any type don't spend a lot of time hand wringing about problems and emotions. If they did, they would never get anything done.

    This is one of the reasons I never wanted to climb the management ladder. I hate disciplining and firing employees. I realize it is necessary for companies to function, but I really don't like doing it.

    A CEO who can layoff a whole division or a general who can have a 1000 men charge a hill knowing many will die is not going to break down in tears base on some Barbara Walters level questions.

    A side effect of this is that many people who accomplish 'great things' are jerks: Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Thomas Edison, George Patton, etc.

  15. Malcolm said it best by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    Your scientist were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.

    ....and...

    I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you wanna sell it.

    ...applies to social media just as much as it does cloning dinosaurs. Silicon Valley is all about "can we do it" and "can we sell it", nothing else.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  16. Re:Notice how Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He could just drop a few well positioned target ads and presto-chango, we'd all stop questioning him.

    I dunno... billions of people keep logging into that obvious trap. Some people even think it's a utility. They think it's like, somehow necessary. If the thing wasn't effective at brainwashing, then why would so many people believe such a ridiculous thing?

  17. Re:They have something in common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... hilarious

  18. muh feels by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But it was impossible to get him to acknowledge any personal pain as both the creator and the destroyer.

    I'm no Zuckerberg fan, but sheesh.

    He's actually on your side politically, and he's saying that he wants to address your concerns, but you are in a tizzy because he won't say the "right" things about how he feels and he won't emote the way you want him to??

    1. Re:muh feels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      She is thinking like a female. She is expecting a man to act like a female.

      Don't hate me because I'm right :)

    2. Re:muh feels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, people are in a tizzy because that sack of shit Zuckerberg is making stupid mistakes for which he isn't the one paying the price ... and I don't mean his loss of fucking stock value for his overvalued company.

      It's not his fucking personal information he's leaking.

      I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire, and I'm sure as hell not going to accept him saying "yeah, we're an invasive company who is violating everyone's privacy and helping foreign agents to influence elections, so we'll try harder next time".

      No, sorry, Facebook should have been thinking of this shit before they became a problem.

      Zuckerfuck fiercely defends his own privacy, while treating ours like a commodity. As such, anybody in the employ of Facebook should be doxxed, hacked, and abused ... along with their entire fucking families. The higher up the food chain, even more so.

      They've given up any right for us to give a fuck about their privacy. So publish every goddamned bit of information about them .. their banking information, where their children go to school, their phone numbers ... everything.

      In this case, turnabout is definitely fair play.

    3. Re:muh feels by sinij · · Score: 1

      He's actually on your side politically, and he's saying that he wants to address your concerns, but you are in a tizzy because he won't say the "right" things about how he feels and he won't emote the way you want him to??

      I think it was fairly shrewd move to not announce sexual arousal and the urge to spank the interviewer by Mark.

      When you ask people to tell you how they feel, are you really prepared to hear the answer?

    4. Re:muh feels by fredrated · · Score: 0

      I don't hate you because you are right, I hate you because you are wrong.

    5. Re:muh feels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Mr. Berg - I expect you to die

    6. Re:muh feels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Funny how this had been going on for literal years, everyone knew about it and everyone was ok with it.

      Then one person wrote an article about how a company MIGHT have used it to help get Trump get elected, now its a complete shit show for Facebook?

      Meanwhile, Donna Brazile says the DNC rigged their primary and no one gives a shit. People are upset that Facebook "might" have been used to help elect Trump, but actual election rigging is perfectly ok.

      When you meet Trump supporters that don't agree with you and you can't figure it out, the above is a big hint for you.

    7. Re:muh feels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lots of former Democrats give a shit, myself included. That's why we're former. That party needs to fix itself before I'll ever return - until then, more Trump.

    8. Re:muh feels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, no, Facebook is on Mark's side, and that side is whatever makes Mark the most money. Baiting people, turning people against each other, tribalism, all contribute to more screen time which is more ad time. People can only watch so many feel good cat videos before they turn back to hate, racism, and wanting to get theirs.

    9. Re: muh feels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure why we'd worry about voter ID and illegal voting when it's clear a lot of people think party crashers should be able to control the music.

      Oh, boo hoo, the DNC wasn't on the side of some dude that had spent the prior 40 years explaining why he would NEVER join them?

      How DID the DNC manage to get so many Secretaries of State to fudge primary results but couldn't get the same thing done in the general election?

    10. Re:muh feels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't wrong you because you hate, I right you because you hate.

    11. Re: muh feels by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Your argument would be valid if the DNC was a private business, but speaking realistically, they are a part of the government for all practical purposes. They have a duopoly on political power in this country, and they receive plenty of tax dollars, so it's not unreasonable to expect them to abide by their own fucking rules..

      Tribalist bullshit like your post is why we have Trump.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    12. Re: muh feels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tax dollars? Let's see it, dumbass. Election matching dollars don't count since they go to the candidates rather than the party.

    13. Re:muh feels by mrwireless · · Score: 1

      It matters because we want to know if he truly believes this, or is just saying what he thinks he needs to say.

      That's important, because we got into this mess because Zuckerberg is a classic technological determinist. He thinks that slapping technologie onto society will automatically make it better in the long run. And he thinks this course is inevitable.

      We need to know if he has really learned anything about the Social Constructivist point of view:
      - new technology does not automatically make the world a better place, but needs critical thinking and policymaking to steer it in a humane direction.
      - Technological developments are not inevitable, we as a society decide what we accept (see nuclear energy for example or our changing attitude towards oil).

    14. Re:muh feels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so... she should be partisan like you and welcome anything that happens to coincide with "her cause". She should be morally corrupt and ignore the dangers and costs? How terrible of her to have ethics and morals.

  19. Yes, exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All facebook is doing is letting stupid people be stupid.
    This just exposes how dumb the average person is and how stupidly they make decisions on who to vote for.

    I can't find the cite, but this minister said - when asked why he still supports Trump even though everything he does is a slap in the face of Christian values - "Clinton wouldn't allow someone like me to exist. Trump protects people like me."

    1. Where does this guy thinks he lives where a President can do anything like that?
    2. Where did he get that idea? Clinton never -EVER - said anything that was anti-religious. Ever.

    I think that moron got that impression from the bullshit propaganda on facebook. Something with Clinton's name on it that played into the many conservatives' delusion that they are being persecuted for their beliefs - especially Christians. And they completely ignore the fact that Clinton is a regular church goer herself.

    Stupidity indeed.

    1. Re:Yes, exactly by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      I can't find the cite, but this minister said - when asked why he still supports Trump even though everything he does is a slap in the face of Christian values - "Clinton wouldn't allow someone like me to exist. Trump protects people like me.
      2. Where did he get that idea? Clinton never -EVER - said anything that was anti-religious.

      Well, Ellen said that she wouldn't interview Trump because he was the most hostile president in history towards homosexuality. I think you'd be hard pressed to find actual evidence (even using is tweets) that Trump has a more conservative view on this subject than either Bush, Bill Clinton, or Regan. But I hear more than just Ellen say it when I look at my friend's facebook posts.

    2. Re:Yes, exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did he get that idea? Clinton never -EVER - said anything that was anti-religious. Ever. ..... Clinton is a regular church goer

      He isn't fooled by the careful lack of public hostility from elected officials or their fake piety. He hears the words of the fellow travelers of Clinton and the left; hate filled and condescending people in academe and the media that wouldn't hesitate to ruin Christians if they could get away with it. He sees the double standards that are so apparent in the intolerance and scrutiny applied to anything Christian while non-Christian faiths are afforded every benefit of the doubt. He doesn't forget when — despite their best efforts — some of these leaders let the mask slip and commit a little candor, as in Obama's `bitter clingers.'

      I am agnostic but I have no trouble understanding why your minister responded as you claim. You're not fooling anyone.

    3. Re:Yes, exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy, go look at the attacks on any/all conservative blacks and you'll get your answer. They are called race traitors, uncle Toms, Oreos. They are attacked in their communities, in social media and in the media. Blacks are supposed to stay on the Democrat plantation otherwise they must be destroyed.

      That's where he is coming from.

  20. All process arguments are insincere by davide+marney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...including this one. The NY Times never complained when FB "manipulated" the election of Barak Obama in 2012 by letting the DNC volunteers send their friend graph to a vote analysis service which then recommended get-out-the-Democrat-vote messages back. Back then FB was hailed to high heaven as this digital force of nature and Republicans were clueless against the onslaught of the hip, digital natives.

    And look where we are now. The hypocrisy just abounds.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    1. Re:All process arguments are insincere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-campaign-use-tactics-cambridge-analytica/

    2. Re: All process arguments are insincere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's as if people think there's a difference between US citizens and Russian spy services in terms of Facebook and politics. Totally the same thing; you're right to point out the equivalence.

    3. Re:All process arguments are insincere by RenderSeven · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fact checker: Bethania Palma. The far left failed journalist that rushed to MSNBC's Malcom Nance's defense when he called on ISIS to bomb Trump properties. She called the tweet 'poorly worded' and reworded it to 'prove' he never meant that. Because ISIS was actually backing Trump.

      Yes, Bethania Palma, bastion of factualness and objectivity, and the reason not to trust Snopes all that much anymore with politics.

    4. Re:All process arguments are insincere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fact Check: Ad hominem attack. You can't actually change the facts, so attack you're attacking source. In other words, the fact checking is spot on.

    5. Re:All process arguments are insincere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well hey whataboutthisnow?

    6. Re:All process arguments are insincere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah, the "don't trust snopes" canard. Everyone who has had a personal pet theory of theirs squished by Snopes ends up deciding that they are politically biased. Never mind that if you were able to rationally look at things you would see that they rely on publicly verifiable facts.

      But rationality is one of the things to go out of the window when politics is involved and nowadays politics is more partisan than ever (in this country). Well, maybe other than the civil war -- and that was not exactly a fun time. Another example of extreme partisan politics comes from Imperial Rome where an emperor turned on his own partisans to avoid being executed (he lured them into a trap where they were massacred by their opponents).

      The real lesson from the Russian interference is that being partisan and divided is bad for this country and something that our enemies actively promote. What is needed is removing of the blinders of hatred and being rational.

      Don't denigrate Snopes because they busted a pet story -- accept that the major news channels mostly get their facts right (its usually the adjectives, word choice and what is left out that reflects their bias, not so much the facts themselves) and improve your understanding of English to retrieve the core facts being reported while using multiple sources to improve coverage of omitted facts. Being aware that many times stories are repeated by various channels while using a single source (which should then be treated as a single source).

      I'm not knocking you or suggesting your English comprehension is poor, but it can always be better. I'm not telling you to trust any particular news source -- outside of being sources of facts -- and to rely on multiplicity of sources. Accept that other people are different and that, although everyone (including you and me) are prone to moments of irrationality, most people are behaving rationally *from their point of view*.

      The core of my point is to be more flexible. Not to abandon your point of view, but to truly accept that other people have valid points of view, even if they differ from your own. By accepting this and then working to mend grievances -- this is the only way toward healing this country and turning back a tide that is being increasingly driven toward violence.

  21. Mod up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The single most important issue with Spybook (and the rest of the spying industry) is the destruction of privacy. Somehow, they've managed to relegate that to a minor detail among all the talk of security, elections, and other bullshit.

  22. Leftists are just destructive hatemongers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America was built on constructive and liberating agendas, not destructive or controlling agendas.

    #WalkAway

    1. Re:Leftists are just destructive hatemongers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no it wasn't.

    2. Re: Leftists are just destructive hatemongers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea it was you stupid fucking turd gurgler.

  23. Re:Notice how Russia... by DCFusor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In short - we'd make up an enemy if required to keep the status quo in power.
    I think HL Mencken had something to say about it:
    "Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."
    Yep, that describes our (and most other) governments. Russia's done the same using us as the boogyman, North Korea...maybe it's why we don't like looking in the mirror much. It's the oldest trick in the book - hey, look, a bear is even more attention-getting than hey, look, a squirrel.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  24. What's Facebook? by tgibson · · Score: 2

    That's what my grandkids will ask. Their user base will just get older. Their platform isn't compelling or even interesting to the younger generations.

    1. Re:What's Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, they realized that some time back so they bought and control the most popular and compelling social media for the younger generations and didn't change the branding. The Facebook brand could disappear and nothing changes.

    2. Re:What's Facebook? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is that the alternatives are not better privacy wise on a corp level which means also means the data is available at a government level. People feel it's more private because it's easier to hide stuff from your friends, spouse, or partner but the privacy is an illusion.

  25. Re:They have something in common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hitler did really great things too. Awful things, but great things.

  26. Re: They have something in common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah Trump sure is going down! Oh wait, I have been hearing that daily since the day he announced running, so I wonâ(TM)t hold my breath. This article is absurd, Facebook did not threaten democracy. Facebook is for fucking idiots to share Kim Kardashian news and selfies, a few thousand dollars in dumb Russian troll posts did not change any votes. If Hillary and her billion dollar campaign could not beat 100k in laughable Russian ads, she deserved to lose.

  27. Re:Notice how Russia... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    So it's not possible to add a little spice to the crazy soup and then stir it up a bit without having placed all the ingredients in the pot yourself?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  28. More Trump tantrums? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So, someone won an election that liberals do not like. They can't understand how anyone would have been so stupid and unenlightened to vote for him. The obvious solution to the Left is to squelch free speech so that ideas they don't agree with cannot be heard. Liberals need to make sure only the truth as they think it is discussed. They need to protect you from yourself and your friends that think incorrectly.

    Deceit and propaganda have always been part of geopolitics. Trying to subvert your adversaries has always been part of the game between nations. The US has quite the history of such campaigns in other countries. A free society will always be more vulnerable than those that are not free. But the alternative is to not be free. I'd rather open ourselves up more than to restrict the populace and have government (run by a political party) be in charge of deciding what can and cannot be said. The best defense is an educated populace (and not one that's indoctrinated with political bias) as well as a robust and honest press. The more we balkanize ourselves politically, the more susceptible we become as wild claims are met with less suspicion. The anti-Trump crowd are fanning the flames and making us more at risk. They're making it easier for foreign actors to make wild claims and divide us. They're making it easier for a nation that wants us to distrust our government and weaken us internally to create mayhem. The rabid anti-Trump crowd is doing more for Putin and the like than they could have ever dreamed of.

  29. Re:They have something in common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh cut the crap Trump has absolutely nothing in common with Hitler and you know it

  30. Spare me by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    While I was reading this I was wondering, "What pain has Mark Zuckerberg caused anyone? Was it the 30+ year olds he had a policy AGAINST hiring? Was it the blatant political censorship his platform was running?"

    "Oh ... the reporter is claiming most people in this country felt personally harmed because he caused Donald Trump to get elected".

    Probably he wanted it manipulated to his preferences instead of against it.

    Given that FB's stock dropped so, so long after the election and that Trump is polling higher than Obama was at this point, I don't think ordinary Americans feel harmed because Zuckerberg had influenced the election in a way that left them "cold" or desperate or barren or whatever.

    But, you know, maybe that is false. Maybe the DNC should push Hillary on their constituents against their will again. Since it was all just a Facebook fluke and people now realize how awful terrible this economic growth is that far exceeds anywhere the last administration got, it shouldn't happen again, right?

    I don't think that will satisfy the reporter because his guys don't control Facebook as much as they do inside the government with partisans like Mueller running multi year witch huntsn without turning up evidence of anything (unless you count allegations as evidence).

  31. Re:Notice how Russia... by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

    Which is nonsense because Russia is very weak compared to the US, both economically and militarily. Still it's good for Russia that the left pushes the story how Russians have the power to influence the US elections. Just as it was for Cambridge Analytica founders and employees.

  32. What should he say? by imperious_rex · · Score: 2

    So Zuck doesn't say what you want him to say. And what exactly do you want him to say? Do you want Zuck to suddenly fall to his knees and cry profusely, confess his wrong doing, and to repent? Maybe even slit a wrist or two to demonstrate contrition? Jeezus H. Christ, what the f**k do you want him to say??? He's the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company, not some four year old who faces a spanking if he doesn't admit wrongdoing, so expect him to behave accordingly. Grow the f**k up Swisher.

    1. Re:What should he say? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      She wants him to hug her and say I'm sorry, I'm bitterly sorry Trump was elected, let us both pretend that it was because of fake news put up by Russians on Facebook, I will do everything I can to make sure it doesn't happen again, but yes for now we are stuck with him, so let us get drunk together and drown our sorrows in this excellent gin I keep in my file cabinet.

    2. Re:What should he say? by mrwireless · · Score: 1

      She wants to know if he really believes what he says, or is just saying it to avoid the storm.

  33. Oh Look by sexconker · · Score: 2

    Oh look, it's the NYT crying about the Russians again!

    F A K E
    N E W S

  34. Lost interest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I lost all interest in this when I saw the words "kara swisher".

  35. what the fuck is this article about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nothing in /. summary clues me in on what the hell is being talked about inr elation to its title

  36. Exactly by huckamania · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is no one in a tizzy about all of the many carefully planned protests for illegal immigration? That's 12 million unregistered foreign agents currently in country, actively demonstrating for governmental action. Mueller would call it a conspiracy and start issuing subpoenas, if they were Russians and helped the current narrative that Hillary should have won.

    Go back a little further and notice no one complained when the Soviets were sending millions to fund the anti-Vietnam war effort. The Soviets sent more money to the US left during the Vietnam war then they did to the Viet-Cong. Not a whataboutism, just trying to educate.

    The press has more to blame for 2016 by giving Donald so much screen time and then declaring Hillary the victor when the votes hadn't even been cast. Their certainty in a landslide probably did more to suppress the vote than anything else.

    Too much hypocrisy in all of this. Too much irony as well, but it is bitter. Hillary lost twice by not understanding the process. She lost to Barrack in her first Presidential nomination run by not realizing how delegates get counted, which she fixed in the stupidest possible way in her second run. Then she lost to Donald because she couldn't grasp how the electoral college works.

    1. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This.

      Trump is a caricature of a human being. Clinton should have won. The left is blinding itself to the cold hard truth: Trump didn't win the election, Clinton LOST the election. It was hers to lose and she lost it.

      The left needs to do some soul searching and figure out why they lost, not try to conjure up some meta-fictional scenario of social media manipulation by evil Russian spies.

    2. Re: Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Keep telling yourself the same thing when he wins the next one.

  37. Net Neutrality vs. Social Net Neutrality by dslmodem · · Score: 1

    Totally from a different perspective.

    A social network could be viewed as a big pipe carrying information. Most of time, it does not "create" content. Then, does "Net Neutrality" imply a "Social Net Neutrality"?

    --

    ^(oo)^pig~

  38. If at first you don't succeeed, .... by blurrrry · · Score: 1

    ..."in running a company, if you want to be innovative and advance things forward, I think you have to be willing to get some things wrong. But I don't think it is acceptable to get the same things wrong over and over again." sounds good until it becomes "Oppsss. Accidentally created AI that wiped out humanity. At least we can't make that mistake again." -or- If at first you don't succeed, so much for skydiving!

  39. MOD PARENT FUNNY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ridicule has its uses.

  40. Re:They have something in common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's more popular and approval numbers are higher than Obama.

  41. Re: They have something in common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, leave it up to the nitwits to excuse anything ass ociated with Trump.

    It doesn't have to be "changing votes." It can be deterring voters from actually going. But don't let any truth get in the way of the (Russian-supported) narrative of 'corrupt bitch'. We should treat Russian ads on Facebook just like the rain: something that depresses Democratic turnout but we're willing to accept because we have no control over it.

    Wait, or we could take control over it...

  42. Re: Notice how Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't have to radically change squat to affect an election system like ours. A few hundred votes (or 5 if you like Supreme Court jokes) determined the outcome in 2000. Are you saying the Russians wouldn't even have tried to influence anything because it was unlikely they'd succeed? You're aware that millions of people buy lottery tickets, right?

  43. There is a problem...just not that one. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    The reason that Facebook has a problem isn't that it allowed the Rooskies to bamboozle us. The reason that Facebook has a problem is that it's a pro-social advertising and data-mining platform.

    There are some marginal improvements with the different reacts, but Facebook encourages spreading things people like over stopping things people don't like. That, along with the bubble effect, make it a series of big circlejerks instead of a conversation, where things like 'nuance' can reside. As it turns out, circlejerks tend to be less productive and more sensationalist. Color me surprised.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:There is a problem...just not that one. by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      > where things like 'nuance' can reside

      That reminds me of quote from Taleb quoting that French guy who said "Logic excludes -- by definition -- nuances, and Truth resides exclusively in nuances."

  44. He is NOT an engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact he is not even anything, academically speaking, because he chose to drop his studies in psychology (!) in favor of building Facebook. Well, in other times sociopaths would start wars, this time they get to control the world from behind a computer screen. That's (!) the really scary part.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg

  45. The Great Firewall of Facebook by hsthompson69 · · Score: 2

    Looks like Facebook needs to learn a little bit from China, who has done a bang up job of filtering offensive content in their country. I hear North Korea has a pretty good handle on locking down "problematic" content from the hoi polloi.

    Those decrying the free speech rights of russian trolls might want to think about babies and bathwater for a while.

  46. Re:Notice how Russia... by sexconker · · Score: 1

    despite that said premise is not yet supported by hard evidence.

    It is supported by hard evidence, but it points to Hillary and the DNC being behind it all.

  47. "Russians" have meddled for DECADES by mi · · Score: 2

    Fending off bad actors like the Russians

    The "Russians" needed fending off for decades. The stoked America's racial strife, and sponsored the "peace" movement. Yes, the butchers of Budapest and Prague, the destroyers of Afghanistan were arguing for "peace" and the American Left where lapping it all up! Quite possibly, these efforts cost us victory in Vietnam — the war was no less justified than the earlier Korean one, but met much higher internal opposition...

    Only back then the same NYTimes — and all the rest of the Left-thinking Americans — mocked any attempts at the fending off as "Red scare" and denounced it as "evil McCarthyism". And now the same people are trying to convince us, the President is illegitimate, because his son once met with a Russian lawyer.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  48. Why pretend this is a Russia problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't blame people for thinking it is - media blaring it, influential social media sites frequented by people paid to promote the narrative ;)

    I'm sure that if you're even remotely interested in history of IT - and kept an eye on how things have evolved over the last couple of decades - you know that we've been given nothing that can't be faked in the way of evidence and this Russia interfered (come on now.. read the DNC emails..) narrative is not believable.

    They certainly gave people places where they could speak freely, leading to a more informed public. Infuenced the election... i guess being informed could be called that :D

  49. NOT FUNNY by Comboman · · Score: 0

    Insightful? Yes. Informative? Yes. But not funny. I stopped laughing at this clusterfuck long ago.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  50. This isn't News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Foreigners trying to influence people in other countries or trying to steal from them, via the Internet??? OMGZ!

    Oh wait, I'm not new to the internet. This stuff has been happening since the beginning. We, as a society, have disregarded this spam and trolling for decades now.

    No damage was done. There is no evidence for it. Most people probably just dismissed what they didn't agree with as usual. They probably threw an "idiot" in there while they were at it for fun.

  51. I'm OK with Russia "manipulating" elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody who thinks Russia should be banned or otherwise prevented from "manipulating" our elections while also supporting the US government is a hypocrite. Our government has and continues to manipulate democratic governments all over the world and has been doing it for hundred+ years already. Have you ever looked at how many overseas military bases the US has (and those aren't exactly just deceptive but using threat of actual violence)? You would have to be retarded to think that our elections have been and aren't being manipulated by everybody all the time. Every political message you post online is manipulation. That is how democracy works. If we didn't/don't have freedom of speech (and I'd argue we don't really) then our democracy is a farce.

  52. feeling a deep sense of responsibility? by hAckz0r · · Score: 1

    If he had any "feelings" before getting caught paying his employees to spread disinformation to deliberately throw the election to Trump, then he should have just done nothing instead. Zuckerberg, Its too late for feeling sorry. It would be bad enough for him to let other people spread lies and disinformation, but actually paying your own employees to do it for you is just inexcusable.

    TreasonBook(tm) anyone?
    https://www.youtube.com/result...

  53. Re: They have something in common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure Obama is super high now that he can enjoy cannibis in the places where it's been legalized.

  54. So Much Self-Interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's almost like Zuck simply cannot bring himself to say, or believe, that Facebook did something wrong, or might even be a complete waste of time.

    It's almost as if, say, the President, was brought proof that Russians helped, let us say, get him elected. And that President might find a way to NOT believe that evidence, no matter how strong, who presented it, what that evidence actually was, or what the later consequences for disbelieving were.

    It's a good thing we don't have to worry about that here. Whew! Dodged another bullet...

  55. The lessons that stick are the lessons that hurt. by Larsen+E+Whipsnade · · Score: 1

    It's unrealistic to expect empathy from the sort of people ho helm Internet companies. But it's realistic to expect them to change their ways when their ways cost them money.

    He's not stupid, just evil. And evil can be reasoned with. All we had to do was hurt him enough.

  56. The podesta emails allegedly leaked by Russia.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would have been a ho-hum nothing burger if the American news media (who self-identify as less than 8% Republican and have reported over 90% negative on Trump) had been honest journalists honestly doing their jobs.

    IF Russia hacked Podesta's email (by discovering that his password was "p@assword"), then the crime's primary effect was to expose the rampant dishonesty of the Hillary campaign and the DNC rigging their primary. None of the facts that were exposed to the American people were debunked as false. If the American press had been accurately reporting on the Hillary team, not one damned thing in those emails would have been a surprise to Americans and the leaking of them would have had no kick to it.

    As it is, there's no evidence a single vote was changed by "Russian hacking".

    Personally, I'm offended that the government of Mexico has urged millions of its citizens to move into America illegally and to vote in our elections, with each one of those who manage to cast a vote having the effect of nullifying the vote of an American citizen. This is, be definition, a foreign government meddling in our elections. I think we need a special prosecutor to investigate Democrats colluding with Mexico.

  57. The only reason I used Facebook... by Larsen+E+Whipsnade · · Score: 1

    was because of various friends and groups that did everything through Facebook because it never occurred to them not to. They just couldn't grasp why I was so reluctant. They didn't see the problem.

    In order to free myself from Facebook, I had to blow them all off. Let the hostages fend for themselves.

    You can't just blow off a cultural institution. You have to count the cost and chew off a limb of your social life.

    Society is other people. And most other people are morons.

  58. muh russia! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go fuck yourself, Jew York Times

  59. What a load of bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have had CIA operation mocking bird since 1965 which has manipulated the media to influence elections.. and someone assassinated JFK and yet people are scared of some FACEBOOK POSTS like its the end of the world.

    I'm now waiting to see those meme's 'One does not simply post on facebook and influence an election'

    Also Noam Chompsky has recently given his take, pointing out that Israel has more influence over the elections than Russia ever has. When will people realise elections do not occur in a vacuum.

  60. Re:They have something in common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cite.

  61. Re:Notice how Russia... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    A German comedian put it best: If you know who the enemy is, your day has structure.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  62. What's she trying to say, don't try new things? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Call it the education of Mark Zuckerberg and Silicon Valley, but on the world's dime.

    What? Were Zuckerberg and Silicon Valley supposed to predict ahead of time what all the outcomes of doing something new? Is anyone with a new business or idea supposed to whip out a crystal ball first to make sure there's no potential downside? Should we preemptively lock up bold entrepreneurs lest they come up with something brilliant but imperfect?

    What a jerk.