Facebook: Zuckerberg's Pitiful Mannequin-Like Congressional Testimony

Mike Mish Shedlock

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress today. It was a pitiful performance even for a mannequin.
Comments (17)
No. 1-17
Jojo
Jojo

Data is handsomer.

Stuki
Stuki

A bunch of half literate tax feeders nor ambulance chasers will never, ever, in any number of billion years, be the appropriate way of dealing what one perceives as a problem of “data privacy.” Nor the appropriate way to deal with anything else, for that matter. But, I digress.

By knowing more about you, a service can better be tailored specifically to your preferences. AND, as long as that knowledge about you also has value to others, by selling it to those; the service can afford to charge you less, as well as invest more in becoming a better service to you. Resulting in, the ones that track and sell, WILL provide a “better” experience than the ones who don’t.

Unless you, yourself, specifically make choices reflecting your stated preference for keeping data about yourself private, instead of flocking to choices that are rendered slicker, more convenient, more personalized and cheaper specifically by disregarding privacy, you’ll continue to get more of the latter. Duh! It’s hardly Zuckerberg’s fault that most of the people that are not stuck in Ecuadorian embassies in practice don’t seem to mind divulging and sharing everything they do on Facebook. It’s not as it’s that hard to just not use Facebook at all.

For pretty good anonymity, download Tails, or any other similar stateless OS. If for no other reason, then in order to see how limiting decent anonymity currently is. You can then, with some effort, obtain an anonymous email address, some crypto currency, and use the latter to buy some online storage somewhere. Allowing you to maintain some state. Then, get a, or some, private keys, giving you the ability to have something like durable identities, not linkable to your physical person.

It’s currently all a bit of a pain, which is why the average slob don’t seem to care much. Preferring to just hand his bank accounts and medical journal to Facebook instead. So that Zuck can pay his bills and schedule his doctor visits. Which Zuck can afford to do for free; as long as someone else is willing to pay for the costs in exchange for using the data to target adds.

BUT, some measure of anonymity doesn’t have to be as much of a pain as it currently is. Being anonymous will always be harder, more complicated than not. Just as living in the wild, is harder and more complicated than showing up for feeding at the zoo at fixed hours. But the sheer lack of anyone even bothering to try, means there is precious little demand for products and services aimed at improving the experience, one babystep at a time.

killben
killben

I am actually flummoxed by the hype surrounding testifying before the senators as if it matters. It is nothing but a staged show! Nothing of substance ever happens. We have seen this play in 2009... the banksters came, answered vaguely and then they left.

Rdog17
Rdog17

Agreed killben... all for show on all sides. Doubtful anything of substance will come of this. No one will go to jail and the people that do this type of stuff will just get better at what they do in mining and using this information for their benefit... not ours.

KidHorn
KidHorn

For years, if I search for say 'lawnmower' in google, I would get a bunch of home depot lawnmower ads popping up on various web sites. I can tell what my wife is interested in buying by the ads that pop up on my computer at work. This entire farce is nothing new or specific to facebook. The difference is Facebook data might have been used to help get Trump elected. I understand why many hate Trump and want him ousted, but the precedent being set in how it's happening is far worse than anything Trump might do. This is what one would expect from a 3rd world dictatorship. Not a supposedly democratic country.

JonSellers
JonSellers

Why would it matter if someone is using FB to manipulate people into voting for Trump? Is that worse than using television advertising? Newspaper advertising? The average member of the voting public is easily manipulated. Trump, Clinton, and pretty much all of Congress wouldn't be where they are if people weren't easily manipulated. I assume the issue is that the folks who own the traditional advertising media, and who are probably the same people who provide most of the campaign donations, don't like a new kid on the block moving in on their scam. Tough toe nails.

Carl_R
Carl_R

As I understand it, the problem comes where they were able to identify people, and target them with news that motivated them to vote for Trump. The solution to that is easy enough, and appears to already be underway. Just block all conservative news, so that all people are immersed only in similar news.

ReadyKilowatt
ReadyKilowatt

These guys are all just trying to figure out how a $100,000 ad buy beat a billion dollar presidential campaign. So they can do the same thing when they're up for reelection.

whirlaway
whirlaway

It was not $100K vs $ 1B. It was a crappy status quo candidate versus a populist, though iffy, anti-establishment candidate. And people decided to take a chance with the latter.

RonJ
RonJ

"Not New, Not an Accident" Yes, Zuckerberg lied to the Senate. Zuckerberg made no mistakes. What he did and still does, is deliberate and intentional. Zuckerberg noted that Silicon Valley is "very left wing." Facebook is anti democratic, as it suppresses free speech by non leftists. Facebook is a threat to our democracy. KIDHORN, Facebook first gave its data away to the Democratic Party, not Cambridge Analytica, despite the the MSM propaganda on local KTLA news. The precedent was set in 2008, as Facebook was on Obama's side, a company official admitted.

RonJ
RonJ

California SB 1424: "This bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Web site. The bill would require the plan to include, among other things, a plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories, the utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories, providing outreach to social media users, and placing a warning on a news story containing false information." California is becoming a totalitarian state. Firstly, i would ignore any such warning, as there is no trusting "fact" checkers at "very left wing" Facebook. Secondly, i don't even watch MSM network news any more, as i have no reason to trust the propaganda they are promoting. Pan's bill is not attempt to fight Fake News, it is an attempt to prevent the people from knowing the truth.

RonJ
RonJ

The hallmark of a totalitarian state.

Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus

True, but it's a good theater for the sheep who actually think this stage act is real. Theater or not, some true gems came out of it. Apparently, according to Zuckerberg, Europeans are more sensitive about data security. This is false. The difference is in the bought and sold political class which has some way to catch up on the other side of the Atlantic.

Brother
Brother

Max Headroom is real...omg...this guy's birthday is 666

WildBull
WildBull

Zuckerberg is being held up as an example to what happens to those that aid and abet the enemy. It wasn't that he supplied this information. This is the business that Facebook is in. Facebook builds psych profiles based on everything you post, everything you click on and every answer to every cutsie quiz question. Zuckerberg's mistake is that he supplied this information to the wrong people. The moral of this story is that if you do anything that supports an unsanctioned candidate, you will have your a$$ handed to you. He looks this way because he has been threatened and is scared to death. Beware!!!


Global Economics

FEATURED
COMMUNITY