
Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress - m1
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/live/2018/apr/10/mark-zuckerberg-testimony-live-congress-facebook-cambridge-analytica
======
misiti3780
"Is it true facebook can track user browsers even after they are logged out of
facebook?"

Zuck: "I need to get back to you on that"

~~~
btown
Facebook doesn't delete all cookies (for instance, there's an `sb` cookie
still set) in their logout response. They may _choose_ not to do anything with
the cookies that remain, but the technical answer to the question is yes. And
even if they currently did delete all cookies, there's nothing from preventing
them from introducing cookies that do remain.

Zuck knows this is generally feasible - he's a talented software engineer. The
question was ambiguously worded, and Zuck could have clarified or answered
that it's generally feasible but that Facebook has tight controls around the
usage of that information. It's the panel's responsibility to not let him get
away with that type of maneuver, and they don't have the type of real-time
support that, say, a news anchor has (with earpiece and live research staff)
to handle interviewing domain experts in an optimal way.

~~~
mortdeus
This is all supposed to be politically scary and demonstrative of the fact
that very few people actually knows what is going on. Which all the more scary
to me because these are the people who are supposed to understand what's going
on so they can have proper oversight. This entire issue reminds me of the time
the supreme court tried to wrap their brains around the (finger quotes) "the
cloud".

What's really sad is that nobody has been addressing just how creepy the
internet is getting. Like the fact that with just 500 likes the social network
can insinuate more of your personality than your lover. Or how Google can
predict what you will likely like to eat for breakfast tomorrow based on the
kind of stuff you are buying at the store whenever you use reward cards that
is gets cross referenced to your browsing habits that insinuate moods.

We are really over engineering the internet to the point that we have a "don't
touch that red button" being installed into our lives where nobody knows what
it does until it gets pressed, we end up wrecking our cars and are left
wondering why the car manufacturers thought it was smart to install NOS in our
cars without our knowledge in order to remain on the cutting edge (and thus
competitive).

~~~
terminado

      ...with just 500 likes the social network can 
      insinuate more of your personality than your 
      lover.
    

...and get absolutely everything wrong with such assumptions in the process,
including whether or not it's possible to lie when using the Like button.

~~~
robryan
For advertising purposes it really only depends as a whole how truthful a
picture the likes tell. If the likes are on average 70% truthful it is still
going to be more effective targeting than not using them at all.

~~~
noobermin
Which is the point. People need to stop seeing "better than a coin flip" as
"knowing you better than your lover".

~~~
cygx
It's a reference to a study where they had an algorithm fed with a certain
number of facebook likes compete against personal acquaintances (including
spouses) in predictig personality traits. The algorithm won:

[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/07/1418680112](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/07/1418680112)

~~~
xg15
The parent's argument assumes though that this kind of accuracy is achieved
regularly and consistently today, which is way different than the report of
one study.

~~~
superjambo
It doesn't need to be consistent in order to be horrifying.

The fear is that big data tech will become radioactive.

Imagine a bus full of school kids crashes because the driver was a recovering
alcoholic who fell off the wagon.

Some smart SV engineer realizes their tech spotted the driver visited AA
groups regularly & his wife just left him. The algorithm knows this data makes
him an excellent target audience for _new alco-energy drink!_.

It doesn't really matter if the technology is even capable of that yet, what
matters is that this is the sort of outcome that adtech engineers are trying
to create.

------
_bxg1
It's pretty cringe-y so far. From The Verge's liveblog: "I would liken this
hearing so far to a precocious college junior explaining his major to his
grandparents at Thanksgiving"

~~~
fbonetti
It's a really odd line of questioning from people who don't seem to understand
the subject matter. This gem made me laugh out loud:

    
    
        Senator: How do you sustain a business model in which users don't pay for your service?
        Zuckerberg (in a disdainful tone): Senator, we run ads.
    

[https://clips.twitch.tv/FantasticCrowdedDelicataPipeHype](https://clips.twitch.tv/FantasticCrowdedDelicataPipeHype)

Edit: I directly transcribed the exchange

~~~
rdiddly
The question and its answer succeed in getting Zuckerberg on record (in the
Congressional Record, no less) as saying that his business model depends on
advertising, with all that that implies about the relationship between
Facebook and its users.

Think of it as like when you're on the witness stand and the attorney asks you
a question. It's not because he doesn't know the answer. It's because he wants
you to say the answer, to make it part of the public record and to have the
jury hear it.

Speaking of juries, the arrogance of Zuckerberg's answer wouldn't win any
points with a jury, either. He walked into a trap right there.

It's fun to bust on our parents & politicos but I'm pretty sure anybody who
managed to raise you, or especially get into the Senate, has a much more
extensive and nuanced understanding of life (and politics) than you think.

~~~
manigandham
> Zuckerberg on record (in the Congressional Record, no less) as saying that
> his business model depends on advertising

This has never been secret and has been "on record" for a very long time. I
think most people will see the absolutely dismal lack of technical
understanding by Congress rather than any arrogance by Facebook as they too
get fed up with these aimless questions.

~~~
jeffdavis
Have you ever written an introduction to a technical document before? You make
statements in there that are obvious, not because the reader doesn't
understand, but because you want to bring the reader into the right frame of
mind with the right set of facts before them as context for the rest of the
document.

Questions like this are really just asking Zuckerberg to introduce his
business in a controlled way.

~~~
manigandham
Alright that's fair, I guess I misinterpreted the original comment as if this
was cleverly teasing the information out of him vs just repeating the fact as
background for the hearing.

------
ibejoeb
I guess I'm still confused about this matter. As I understand it, nothing was
exploited. A company used intrinsic capabilities of the system to do a job.
Are we just raising the question of whether this is an appropriate business
model? I suppose that's a good discussion to have.

I'm just a bit miffed that we're effectively holding another obscenities
hearing while the only thing going on with the Equifax debacle is that a tech
manager has been charged with insider trading.

~~~
m52go
The way Cambridge Analytica's got its data was a little nefarious...as I
understand it, they obtained data through ways Facebook discouraged (but still
enabled).

Whether you consider that an 'exploit' or not is subjective. It's certainly
not an 'exploit' in the more common infosec sense.

But the real issue here is that Facebook was complicit in electing Donald
Trump. It's political.

~~~
Consultant32452
>But the real issue here is that Facebook was complicit in electing Donald
Trump. It's political.

This bit is really terrifying to me. I don't support Trump, but the idea that
we're going to make it even harder for "unapproved" political candidates
should make everyone's skin crawl.

~~~
sincerely
I thought the issue was that _foreign actors_ were able to use Facebook to
push for their candidate of choice, not that Trump was "unapproved" (why do
you use quotes? that phrase doesn't appear anywhere in the comment you're
responding to).

~~~
Consultant32452
I don't believe for a second that this much fuss would have been made over
this issue if Trump had lost the election. Some law enforcement action may
have been taken, but it wouldn't have been front page news. The reason for my
quotes is that Trump is "unapproved" which is the explanation for the scale of
the reaction. I don't particularly approve of him either, but considering the
real motivations of the people writing regulation is important.

~~~
singingboyo
Of course there wouldn't be as much fuss about it. Trump losing the election
would imply that the attempts at influencing people were unsuccessful. At a
glance, that would indicate that regulation is unnecessary (though detailed
analysis could show otherwise).

~~~
Consultant32452
Foreign spending on political FB ads was a drop in the ocean. Especially when
you consider it played to both sides (acknowledge it leaned towards Trump),
was not all in swing states, and a lot of it was after the election. This is
almost certainly not about them.

------
dschuetz
When you ask general questions you get "We did not do anything illegal, we did
something wrong though; but, people do not read Terms Of Use/Privacy, and they
do not read manuals"

When you ask very specific questions you get "I need to get back to you on
that", right?

There is clearly a conflict of interest there. In a public hearing the CEO of
his own company is basically forced into giving up their trade secrets on how
and why his company even got so successful in the business of ad targeting.

The question is: In his place, what would you do? Tell everything and
potentially break your own company, your system, life achievement, whatever?
Or be careful and vague to save it? I'm not trying to defend his position, but
rather to understand it. In any case, he maneuvered himself and his company in
a situation where it'll be impossible to keep secrets anymore. Nothing will
ever be the same, and he is responsible for it, because it was his idea and
his intention behind enabling his company to _connect people_ by selling ads.

~~~
johnchristopher
Trade secret ? What would that be ? Is there a secret sauce to Facebook's
success beyond the early mass adoption and dedication to
adtech/attentioneconomy from the beginning ?

~~~
dschuetz
I believe so, yes. Why else would they be so successful? Any other attempt to
replace Facebook (or even copy it) as a social network had failed or remained
insignificant. Why? I think, because they cannot agree on how to finance their
services on large scales. Facebook has vast monetary resources and they know
to manage them.

I imagine the story of Facebook as this. In the beginning Facebook was just
another campus project gone wild. But then there was an idea to grow beyond
the campus, somehow. The question arose: where do we get the money? Answer:
Well, we do online ads. Later: How do we grow world-wide? We need even more
money, we need to bring in and convince investors, that we have a vast network
of ads and that's basically a dead-sure cash cow. So, Facebook mutated from an
innocent campus project into a cash cow, just because that's the way it goes.
But, it doesn't mean that it's right. So, the question is: What does Facebook
do to keep ahead of its competition (Apple, Google, ... as Zuck said)? It's a
trade secret, right?

~~~
suprfnk
> Why else would they be so successful? Any other attempt to replace Facebook
> (or even copy it) as a social network had failed or remained insignificant.

Would this not be adequately explained by the first movers advantage (or maybe
not the very first, but very early), coupled with the network effect?

~~~
borski
No, as Facebook was not first. Myspace was a thing, and before that
Friendster.

~~~
rbg246
I would suggest that it was a first mover's advantage into mainstream society.
My mum and dad have never heard of Friendster and My Space

------
mercer
Wow. I didn't expect that he'd speak in favor of 'special features like facial
recognition' by arguing that it's how we can be competitive with 'other
regimes like China'. That seems like a comparison I'd avoid if I was facebook.

~~~
paxys
Not if you're talking a group of Senators who have always voted for state-
sponsored spying on citizens.

------
robin_reala
This image from Reddit purports to be Mark’s notes from the meeting:
[https://i.redd.it/egi0jlf096r01.jpg](https://i.redd.it/egi0jlf096r01.jpg) .
Some interesting stuff in there if true.

~~~
denzil_correa
“Don’t say we already do what GDPR requires”

“Lots of stories about apps misusing Apple Data. Never heard of Apple
notifying anyone”

~~~
PascLeRasc
That's funny when Tim Cook immediately addressed concerns about FBI backdoors
and there's a wealth of information on Apple's website about how they use
local data protection with the secure enclave, and iOS 11 gives you
information on protecting your personal information when you install it.

------
mmsimanga
Am I missing something? Take the Senator who spoke about monopolies. An oil
monopoly is bad because we all need to get to work and trains need to run.
Microsoft monopoly, arguable but I can see how it can be bad. All companies
end up using Microsoft and this affects everyone, hospitals, schools ...
Facebook is optional, we won't starve, hospitals won't close, aeroplanes will
continue if we delete Facebook. Is this an acceptance that modern man cannot
but keep up with the Jones. Just because my neighbour and school friends are
on Facebook, I need to be on Facebook. Don't mind though me as an African we
have some way to go before this becomes a burning issue.

~~~
gregknicholson
Are there are job offers on Facebook? (That's a genuine question; I don't have
an account.)

Perhaps some service providers are only (or primarily) contactable for
complaints via Facebook (and maybe Twitter and a couple of others), and
therefore to contact them you need an account with one of those companies.

So perhaps to participate in society without a disadvantage, you need an
account with Facebook Inc, or at least I think that's the idea.

(Also, there are alternatives to oil! If you don't like the service provided
by Oil Inc, you can buy your energy from Electricity Ltd instead.)

~~~
Slansitartop
> Are there are job offers on Facebook? (That's a genuine question; I don't
> have an account.)

IIRC, they're trying to become the blue collar linkedin.

[https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/28/facebook-job-
posts/](https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/28/facebook-job-posts/)

~~~
paulie_a
Hahaha, I can't even begin to wonder how bad that experience will be
considering how awful marketplace is.

~~~
propman
It's actually pretty good. One of the only things I'm really proud about
pertaining to Facebook. Many blue collar workers, especially those out of the
workforce need any assistance they need and it's HARD to gain motivation to
apply via LinkedIn or individually find places. From this, it's right on
Facebook, they understand the UI and the first initial step in the job process
becomes a lot easier and then it cascades after that. I like how it's targeted
to blue collar work as well.

------
tareqak
I’m streaming it along side graphs of Facebook’s stock price here:
[https://twitch.tv/tareqak](https://twitch.tv/tareqak) and I posted it on HN
earlier here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16803453](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16803453)
.

~~~
tareqak
Thanks to all who came to watch. I stopped the stream now because it’s been
over 20 minutes since the markets have closed and I’m not adding value at this
point. The links to my sources are still live. They just took a brief break as
well.

Thanks again.

~~~
tareqak
[https://www.twitch.tv/washingtonpost](https://www.twitch.tv/washingtonpost)
is continuing to stream the testimony. Some of the questioning sounds tougher
now, so it's a shame that markets are closed.

~~~
tareqak
I found that CNBC offers some after market data. It's not good as what I had
before, but it's better nothing, so I'm streaming again here:
[https://twitch.tv/tareqak](https://twitch.tv/tareqak) .

------
sp332
Some bingo cards:

[https://twitter.com/libshipwreck/status/983358587723505666](https://twitter.com/libshipwreck/status/983358587723505666)

[https://twitter.com/Gizmodo/status/983780434621489153](https://twitter.com/Gizmodo/status/983780434621489153)

[https://twitter.com/qz/status/983754216861822977](https://twitter.com/qz/status/983754216861822977)

~~~
bg4
There needs to be a square for: "In general..."

------
koolba
Live from the testimony, emphasis mine:

> MZ: "There will always be _a version_ of Facebook that is free.

Coming soon, Facebook Pro(TM)! Literally putting a price on your privacy.

~~~
HoppedUpMenace
I caught that too, can only imagine what the public at large will think of
this were it to happen.

~~~
TAForObvReasons
From how the stock market is reacting, some people clearly don't think the
public at large will care

~~~
cremp
They won't; people spend a lot of money to farm virtual crops. That same group
of people will do whatever it takes to keep farming.

------
drexlspivey
I call BS on actual deleting all user data when someone deletes his account.
If some whistle blower proves otherwise is he liable for prosecution for
perjury?

~~~
wuunderbar
Define deleted. Do you mean the data itself is purged, or simply marked as
deleted and rendered inaccessible?

If you mean purged, then do you also mean that it is zeroed off of the disk by
a multiple low-level pass?

This would be hard to prosecute for perjury as the definition of "deleted" can
be construed in many ways.

~~~
Silhouette
This is the sort of word game that surely wouldn't last ten seconds in any
courtroom.

"Did you delete the data or not?"

"Yes, we deleted the data."

"Then how is it that we're all sitting here looking at it?"

This modern fiction of pretending something is deleted just because someone
set a flag called "deleted" has about as much relevance to actual deletion as
the evil bit in an IPv4 header has to actual Internet security. It's not
deleted in any technical sense, nor in the common English meaning of the word.

~~~
bhhaskin
But the reality is that is exactly what is happening when you delete a file.
It sets a flag as deleted in the file system. The data reminds there until
overwritten. Computers have worked this way since forever. Also if you look at
the definition of delete it matches this. To remove by striking out or
canceling, not to remove all remove all traces.

~~~
bithive123
The point people are trying to make is that properly practiced law can't be
circumvented by these kinds of arguments.

If there was a requirement to do something with the data and it was not done
then you failed, technical jargon and implementation details are irrelevant.

~~~
Blahah
I really do not think this is accurate. I have been in a courtroom when a file
was described as 'deleted' and then an expert witness 'recovered' the
'deleted' file, which was entered as evidence.

Delete is a technical word that has a specfiic meaning. Unlike most language,
technical terms are (to some degree) clearly defined and should not change
over time or with common usage. Whether people misinterpret the word
arbitrarily is not important when experts are being consulted - they use the
word as defined. The word delete means what it means, and any expert giving
testimony about it would use the same definition. It certainly doesn't mean
removing information completely from existence with no possibility of it
surviving in any way or ever being retrieved.

~~~
Silhouette
_Delete is a technical word that has a specfiic meaning._

Respectfully, if that were true, we wouldn't all be having this discussion.

~~~
Blahah
Respectfully, the fact that we're having this discussion means some
participants aren't adhering to the technical definition. There's a
meandering, geographically and socialogically heterogeneous definition that is
non-technical. In court, I believe a technical expert would use the former,
not the latter (unless specifically required to do otherwise).

~~~
Silhouette
What do you think that definition is? I've never seen a single, authoritative,
technical definition of the term, nor anyone with the authority to write one.

------
18pfsmt
Some poor Senator just went on a rabbit hunt to discuss FB's bug bounty
program. Who are these Congressional staffers?

Tech illiteracy is on full-display; we're not even talking 'power-users' (who
were on UseNet, btw), these people are lost. Zuckerberg had to be gracious and
say his team would follow-up on many things that it was clear the Senator
didn't even understand. This is supposed to be our smart chamber.

~~~
Karrot_Kream
Disagree. Several controversial questions were dodged by saying his team would
follow up. While it's attractive to paint politicians as incompetent buffoons,
let's not forget each of them has their own staff and understands what it
means to delegate to your staff and not have answers immediately on hand that
only a staff expert would understand.

~~~
BinaryIdiot
I'm pretty sure both of you are correct. There was a large amount of tech
illiteracy on display but, at the same time, Mark dodged TONS of questions and
spoke indirectly like a professional.

That entire testimony was very unsatisfying, in my opinion.

~~~
wtf_is_up
>That entire testimony was very unsatisfying, in my opinion.

After watching dozens of hours of congressional hearings over the past 2
years, this is not at all surprising. These committees have no teeth.

~~~
Overtonwindow
He wasn’t even under oath

------
baalimago
Mark Zuckerberg does not believe he has a monopoly. He believes there is an
alternative to Facebook in the way that different car manufacturers have
different competitors.

Surely he can't mean this, right?

~~~
grecy
> _Mark Zuckerberg does not believe he has a monopoly._

I tend to agree with him. Facebook just happens to be the most popular
Internet social network, _right now_ , but there is nothing that makes it a
monopoly.

Anyone could replace it, there is nothing actively stopping them from doing
so.

I'm sure for decades the Ford Motor Company was thought of as a Monopoly...
and then they went bankrupt, and that's just one company that comes to mind
right now.

~~~
prewett
Ford was never considered a monopoly. GM and Chrysler have been around since
the early days. And even in the Model T days there were plenty of other cars.
Also, Ford never went bankrupt, you might be thinking of Chrysler or GM, both
of which filed for bankruptcy in 2009, although neither ceased operations (so
not "bankrupt" in the colloquial sense).

Facebook, on the other hand, what other network can I use? Twitter isn't
really the same thing. Most people outside of China don't have WeChat (and why
would I voluntarily give anything to the Chinese government). Same with LINE
(Korea, Taiwan) and VK (Facebook for Russia). Instagram, which really isn't
the same as Facebook is owned by Facebook, as is WhatsApp. The only competitor
is Google+, and is that even still going? Is it really a competing social
media network if no one I know is on it?

~~~
sorokod
This reminds me of a Woody Allen joke:

Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of 'em says,
"Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I
know; and such small portions."

------
koolba
> Senator: Would you feel comfortable sharing with us what hotel you stayed at
> last night?

> _awkward pause_

> MZ: No.

I like where this is going.

------
HoppedUpMenace
MZ: "You control and own the content you post on Facebook"

Something seems just a tad bit disingenuous about this.

~~~
jvreeland
It was an answer to a question that wasn't asked. The senator was asking
whether facebook owns that data it has about a person, and the answer was that
you own what you post. Those are very different sets. A follow up to answer
whether facebook believes it owns the data it's accumulated about you would've
been great.

~~~
Jare
The lack of strong followup questions is the best indicator that there is very
little about this hearing that is spontaneous and not defined in advance.

As I write this, Ms Cantwell starts her questioning and it is a markedly
different style. Interesting

~~~
18pfsmt
How could Zuckerberg know less than Wikipedia about Palantir considering
Thiel's involvement with both FB and Palantir? He seems to _merely_ know of
the existence of Palantir.

~~~
vinceguidry
To be fair, Wikipedia knows a lot more than me, too.

------
piker
Sen. Durbin just talked Zuckerberg out of a qualification that certain
children's data "in general" will not be shared with third parties. He pinned
Zuck to a no, because "as a lawyer" he picked up on it. There's a perfectly
valid reason for the "in general" qualification! If your child is using the
app and police obtain a warrant for the data, Facebook will likely have to
release it! I wonder how much Zuck's desire to be "straightforward" and answer
questions unequivocally here is causing Facebook counsel to cringe.

~~~
ccostes
My impression was that he wasn't under oath for the hearing. Honestly, for the
level of technical complexity they are discussing (often in very non-specific
and general terms), I don't think they'd be able to have a conversation at all
if every statement Zuck made had to be legally bulletproof.

------
vubuntu
Some more important questions to ask :

Facebooks customers are the ad buyers. I and my data is the product. Mark says
I should have control over which of my personal data is shared to whom.

1) But can I control which of my behavioral data (ad clicks, etc) can be
collected and used by facebook and provided to the ad buyers? Can I say
nothing be collected , even in anonymized manner?

2) Primary selling point to ad buyers is facebook provides them ability to do
targeted advertisement. Granted over time facebook has limited discriminatory
targeting (Race based, political inclination based) etc to comply with anti-
discrimination laws. But as a user, do I have control over how I can be
classified, what legal category labels facebook can apply on me and my data?
And whether I want to be classified into any category at all ?

~~~
Zimahl
Ads and the data used for those ads aren't the really the issue, and that's a
problem that people don't realize. The issue is that entities can utilize the
Facebook platform to target specific individuals (or specific groups of
individuals) and bombard them with disinformation _that looks like legitimate
information_.

------
komali2
Say what you will about the intelligence of agreeing to do this hearing at
all, at least Zuckerberg is clearly reading from a well-prepared speech.
Winging it would have been, er, inadvisable.

~~~
Simulacra
According to the Lobbying Disclosure Reports[0], if you add up outside council
for Facebook, they're paying about $156,000 PER MONTH on lobbyists. You'll
want to look at 2017 Q4 reports, as Q1 is not yet due and they don't file
until it's absolutely due.

[0].
[http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx](http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx)

~~~
kzrdude
How many full time lobbyists do you get for that money? One? :-)

~~~
SahAssar
You don't need many, you just need to pay the ones that already have the ear
of a few senators and congressmen enough to lobby for you.

A "good" lobbyist is a time-shared resource that has access to many
legislators, not a sole-use asset.

------
gcatalfamo
The tenor, the awareness, the culture of questions that 70-year-old senators
are turning to Zuckerberg at the congress would make you cheer for Facebook.
Even if you previously hated it.

~~~
almost_usual
Most citizens don't care about the details of any technology they use on a day
to day basis, they only want it to work correctly and enrich their lives.

Do you understand all the mechanics of an automobile? Ever worked on
installing a new suspension for your car? Most people go to a shop to get this
work done and even though they don't know details of the process they trust
the mechanic to get the job done right.

How does this compare to Facebook? Well when you use Facebook you're
entrusting the company with your private information, you expect nothing will
go wrong and the product will enrich your life. There isn't really a "Yelp"
for Social Media to know how many breaches they've had or if a competitor
handles their data better than another. It's a lot easier to find a better
mechanic shop based on a Yelp review than another Facebook.

> The tenor, the awareness, the culture of questions that 70-year-old senators
> are turning to Zuckerberg at the congress would make you cheer for Facebook.
> Even if you previously hated it.

I feel the opposite, these senators represent our citizens who want to know
how their data is being handled. Disregarding their concerns because they lack
knowledge into the technology isn't fair, it's elitist.

~~~
shiftpgdn
I do actually, and in fact through the beauty of the internet a layman could
have a pretty good conceptualization of how to do so with their own vehicle
through Wikipedia, YouTube, etc.

Nobody is forcing you to use Facebook. Everyone has their own agency in this
world. There is no part of the world that is locked out because you don't use
Facebook.

These senators are clearly completely clueless for the most part. Many of them
so far removed from basic internet and computer literacy it is embarrassing.

~~~
almost_usual
> Nobody is forcing you to use Facebook

Deleted Facebook years ago, yes my world is fine without Facebook.

> I do actually, and in fact through the beauty of the internet a layman could
> have a pretty good conceptualization of how to do so with their own vehicle
> through Wikipedia, YouTube, etc.

You've missed the point of my analogy. Facebook is advertised as beneficial,
Mark Zuckerberg claims it enriches lives and brings the world together. When a
user begins engaging with the service under those pretenses they expect a
product that will enrich their life. There are users who are forever tarnished
by Facebook, even if they delete the service their data has been mishandled
and leaked across the internet.

> These senators are clearly completely clueless for the most part. Many of
> them so far removed from basic internet and computer literacy it is
> embarrassing.

I think we're clueless for the most part. We're so entrenched in the internet
and computer culture we forget about everyone else who isn't. Citizens deserve
the right to own their data and have transparency into how it is handled by
other services. Companies who don't support that initiative care more about
their bottom line than their users.

------
mtremsal
His notes are quite fascinating:
[https://mobile.twitter.com/becket/status/983846618263891968?...](https://mobile.twitter.com/becket/status/983846618263891968?s=21)

I wouldn't read too much on the comment that they don't already comply with
GDPR. It's likely it only means they would not comply with an Access Request
before the effective date (5/25).

------
zamalek
I'm an extremely reluctant Facebook user (having recently moved countries, my
whole family and all my friends are on it). I strongly dislike the company; I
don't trust the CEO. My use of the platform is in moderation and occurs within
a Firefox container.

 _> Zuckerberg (opening testimony): I failed. I'm sorry._

All of that being said, that's some serious growth in maturity, and I'd like
to see more of it across the tech industry.

~~~
munk-a
A good friend of mine once told me to "stop apologizing and fix it" when I was
in middle school. Reflecting on that made me realize how empty apologies can
be and spurred some self improvement.

It's not as if Zuckerberg could've shown up today with a patch file and gone
through how he hacked the problems out of the platform last night with some
red bull. But the apologies need to be seen as empty and we've all got to make
sure things actually change.

~~~
zamalek
I agree completely - this is why my opinion of Facebook hasn't yet changed.
However, you have to admit fault before you can resolve it. The alternative
would have been "we are giving users a sense of pride and accomplishment with
their likes."

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
Indeed. "fixing it" isn't an alternative to admitting fault. It's just the
next step.

------
danso
There seem to be multiple feeds with different angles. The one posted by the
Guardian is currently pointed at the current person speaking, e.g. the
Senators. Bloomberg, though, has a feed in which the camera is focused on
Zuckerberg's face for the entirety of the hearing:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyJosQBtzsw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyJosQBtzsw)

~~~
mercer
The PBS News Hour feed puts them side by side:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAZiDRonYZI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAZiDRonYZI)

~~~
mxfh
Looks like it's the one from C-SPAN, which also has a searchable transcript of
the closed captions

[https://www.c-span.org/video/?443543-1/facebook-ceo-mark-
zuc...](https://www.c-span.org/video/?443543-1/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-
testifies-data-protection&live)

------
Simulacra
Is it just me, or does he sound condescending every time he responds, like
he's educating a subordinate he's frustrated with.

~~~
andegre
Have you seen the movie?

~~~
Simulacra
Ah, good point. I avoided the movie because I have a great disdain for Mark.

------
eridius
Washington Post is streaming this on Twitch
[https://www.twitch.tv/washingtonpost](https://www.twitch.tv/washingtonpost)

------
Diggity
I would not be surprised if Zuckerberg were given a script of certain senators
questions prior to this hearing.

A majority of the questioning seems targeted at inspiring consumer confidence
in facebook.

This isn't about serving the American people, this is about protecting
corporation's ability to sell citizens personal data.

~~~
komali2
You believe the Senators are conspiring with Facebook to protect their profit
margin?

Why do you believe this? What would you believe if the questioning was
_harmful_ to facebook? Would you believe that Senators are conspiring with
Snapchat to target facebook?

~~~
goalieca
>Of the 11 senators up for re-election this year who will be questioning Mr.
Zuckerberg, nine of them have received campaign contributions from Facebook’s
political action committee since the 2016 cycle

[https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-
li...](https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-live-
coverage/card/1523382509)

------
Codestare
US senators demonstrating they are embarrassingly out of touch with the
current age.

Also sad to see a senator resorting to dramatic effects like taking off his
glasses before making a grand statement.

These people are running your country?

~~~
2_listerine_pls
It's not a meritocracy

------
Balgair
Now that it's all over, my take away is less cynical. To me, even the Rep.
senators know what this meeting was all about: Donny. Zuck came in, said that
this whole fiasco with Donny is not going to happen again. The senators got
him on record telling them as such, so that they have leverage on him to
actually follow through. Yes, they talked a lot about other stuff too, but we
are unlikely to see the mess of the 2016 election again.

Also, they seemed to favor having FANG write the laws about these data
service. This will entrench them nearly permanently as competitors will then
have to go through all the hoops of complying with regulation, something too
costly for a start-up. When that happens, that's the end of Web 2.0.

------
ggregoire
Did he just say that when an account is deleted, all the data are hard deleted
(not just a boolean in a column)? It's really hard to believe.

~~~
kgc
The reason that this is hard to believe is that most people only end up
deactivating their accounts, not deleting them. This results in a surprise
when they return and all their info is still there.

~~~
ggregoire
No. That’s hard to believe because I don’t known any company that hard deletes
user data.

------
spurcell93
"Are you a monopoly?" "Doesn't feel that way" (laughter)

~~~
ragequitta
Actual question: am I missing something? I get that facebook is big and
powerful, and way too many people use it for their own good, but I'm sitting
here talking to a bunch of people on another platform right now. A large chunk
of which (probably) don't use facebook after recent events. Maybe it's just
because I haven't had facebook in well over 5 years, but I don't see them as a
monopoly on anything at all.

Everyone has thousands of choices on how to share their data if they don't
want to use facebook/instagram/whatsapp. Does the mere fact that they _don 't_
use those other choices make the 1 choice a monopoly?

------
fatjokes
Honest question: are hearings before congress, particularly from tech
companies, any more than opportunities for politicians to grandstand and
demand business leaders "kiss the ring"? I.e., is anything consequential ever
done as a result?

------
cmurf
Lindsay Graham and Mark Zuckerberg colluding together in favor of regulatory
capture. Graham asks Zuckerberg if he would kindly offer some regulatory
suggestions to the committee. And Zuckerberg gleefully responds in the
affirmative.

Yeah, great idea. The regulated become the authors of the regulations. What
could possibly go wrong with that.

~~~
dudzik
“GRAHAM: […] So would you work with us in terms of what regulations you think
are necessary in your industry?

ZUCKERBERG: Absolutely.

GRAHAM: OK. Would you submit to us some proposed regulations?

ZUCKERBERG: Yes. And I’ll have my team follow up with you so, that way, we can
have this discussion across the different categories where I think that this
discussion needs to happen.”[0]

If facebook manages to introduce regulation that requires expensive processes
it could stifle competition and increase their moat.

There was a planet money episode on that topic[1]

0: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2018/04/10...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2018/04/10/transcript-of-mark-zuckerbergs-senate-hearing/)

1:
[https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor...](https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=592376568)

------
mercer
Interesting. I think what the last guy was trying to ask was whether the data
from apps that have facebook analytics (pixel?) installed is cross-referenced
with your facebook account. It's a shame he didn't ask it more clearly and
allowed Zuck to dodge by saying apps are 'isolated' on the phone.

------
baalimago
I smell a "The Social Network 2.0" in the making

~~~
pfarrell
"Mad Mark: Beyond The Capitol Dome"

~~~
yellowapple
Two networks enter! One network leaves!

------
ssalazars
"Will you be comfortable stating the hotel you stayed last night?"

------
husmo
Just witnessed a Freudian slip
[https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4722688/freudian-
slip](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4722688/freudian-slip)

------
18pfsmt
For a low bitrate (~40kbps), audio only stream, check out C-SPAN:
[https://playerservices.streamtheworld.com/api/livestream-
red...](https://playerservices.streamtheworld.com/api/livestream-
redirect/CSPANRADIO.mp3)

------
Zimahl
Ted Cruz clearly showing that he's a partisan hack. Didn't give a crap about
users' privacy or the issues at hand, he had to make it about 'liberal Silicon
Valley' and 'conservative persecution'. What a joke.

~~~
mrlala
It's almost a completely biased question.

Objectively: who engages in hate speech? The far right.

The far left may be overly accepting of everything, let's say.. they are not
the ones engaging in hate speech.

So it's no surprise that far right pages would be banned way more often than
far left pages.

~~~
Anderkent
Far left very much engages in hate speech. Kill all white people etc etc. You
can try to true scotsman that, but you can do the same for the far right.

~~~
brandon272
Who on the left is suggesting that all white people be killed?

Ted Nugent has actually suggested executing Democrats, recently. Not only did
he say it, but there was no backlash from the right.

~~~
Anderkent
Eg [https://www.buzzfeed.com/katienotopoulos/how-trolls-
locked-m...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/katienotopoulos/how-trolls-locked-my-
twitter-account-for-10-days-and-welp?utm_term=.mvAeMVdZy#.bvdLKRBz5)

And before you say it wasn’t meant literally - very obviously what Nugent says
isn’t literal either. He’s a crazy old man, but he said if you see a coyote
you shoot it and allegorically compared this to verbally shutting down
Democrats rather than engaging with them. In no way did he suggest shooting
Democrats.

------
ethbro
CSPAN stream: [https://www.c-span.org/video/?443543-1/facebook-ceo-mark-
zuc...](https://www.c-span.org/video/?443543-1/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-
testifies-data-protection&live)

------
aviv
He was very evasive about Facebook tracking users outside of their FB site and
mobile apps. Kept saying he doesn't understand the question and "team will get
back to you".

It's unfortunate no one (that I've seen) brought up the presence of the Like
button and Facebook comments on a large portion of the web, which means
Facebook knows pretty much most of the sites and pages you visit (even if the
site you visit doesn't include any FB widgets, but the next one you click to
does, since they also track the referrer header).

------
Macuyiko
The point about "not selling data to advertisers" and how Facebook is so
totally different was so cringy.

Just one follow-up question was needed: if I take out 100 ads microtargeting
users, what happens then?

~~~
dbbk
He is right. Even if you did the most microtargeting possible, Facebook is
still not selling that user's data, the advertiser gets no data whatsoever on
the individual that sees or clicks on the ad.

The most you could glean is if you targeted an ad to one person, then that
person clicked on the ad, you know that that one person clicked on the ad. You
don't learn anything else about that person.

~~~
Macuyiko
I wasn't claiming that he isn't right. That is exactly the point: he is
right/correct in all his answers, but the questions are not
specific/technically informed enough.

------
atsushin
The senators involved with the hearing certainly had _some_ good questions,
but some of the topics appeared scattershot and could have benefited from a
narrower focus on FB's data collection and technical issues, though obviously
the Senators and staff would need to understand the issues at a deeper level.
However, touching on the issue of data ownership and the terms of service for
both FB and Kogan's app was a somewhat interesting and satisfying portion of
the hearing.

By far the dumbest questions through the entire meeting, though:

    
    
      Sasse: "Do you hire consultants to tell you how to tap into dopamine feedback loops to keep people addicted?"
    

and (this one had me rolling)

    
    
      Senator Deb Fischer: "How many categories of data do you collect for all 2bn users?"
    
      Zuckerberg: [acts confused]
    

That said, perhaps Zuckerberg's vague and generic answers could have been a
result of ill preparation on -his- side, too. The CEO, while the head of a
company is only involved so much in the day-to-day issues and goings-on. As
the spokesperson, he didn't do much by way of transparency or work to improve
FB's reputation today. Maybe some technical staff should additionally be
interviewed. A list of potential topics prepared by staffers, to be discussed
at the hearing would help Zuckerberg in figuring out what information he
should know.

~~~
davvolun
Thank you. Sasse, in particular, really likes to sound smart, but hasn't done
anything worth a damn.

------
jonbarker
Can we stop referring to 'controls in plain English'? ML models that
microtarget people cannot easily be explained in plain English, and that is
what they are doing.

------
baalimago
I wonder if MZ have targeted adds on his own facebook account. There seems to
be some special rules for him (and probably other 'higher ups' in the facebook
hierarchy), thinking primarily about:
[http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-to-let-users-
unsend-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-to-let-users-unsend-
messages-after-mark-zuckerberg-caught-2018-4?r=US&IR=T&IR=T).

------
coupdejarnac
Zuckerberg appeared to enjoy testifying. Nobody appeared able to match wits
with him, and if questions got difficult, he had well rehearsed escape routes.

------
shiado
In case you want to check if a speaker has accepted contributions from FB
(read "corrupt and failed to disclose conflict of interest")
[https://www.opensecrets.org/search?q=facebook&type=orgs](https://www.opensecrets.org/search?q=facebook&type=orgs)

------
partycoder
Some months ago I saw an job search website ad. I clicked "Why are you seeing
this ad?", and it said it was targeted towards users between 24 and 37. How is
this not enabling age discrimination?

Connecting people can be a good thing, but connecting people through
discrimination is a completely different thing.

~~~
partycoder
Some people have reported seeing real estate apps targeting a specific race,
and noticed this using the "Why are you seeing this ad?" functionality as
well.

There's legislation that prohibits this kind of discrimination.

~~~
chatmasta
Is it discrimination if the company still accepts and fairly considers
applications from other races? Or if the real estate agent will happily sell a
house to anyone no matter their race? Whom you advertise to is not the same as
from whom you accept applications.

Even if an ad targeted “everyone,” it would still only be targeted to everyone
_on Facebook_ , so non-Facebook users could not see it. Is that discriminating
against the protected classes that tend not to use Facebook?

At a certain point you’re eliminating the ability to advertise at all. As long
as the job/house listing is equally accessible to all applicants, there is no
discrimination. The only variable advertising changes is the _visibility_ of
the listing. Visibility and accessibility are not measured in the same way.

It is a very interesting discussion though.

~~~
partycoder
I disagree.

Advertising is one of the inputs to your sales pipeline. Filtering advertising
audience by race and filtering applications by race in the end has the same
result: having more applicants of a specific race.

I do not think race should be a factor when it comes to choosing your
audience. Interests or geographic location might be OK, race is not. And
remember: there's legislation for this when it comes to real estate.

------
ironjunkie
I giggled a bit when Zuck told the chairman which is from a previous
generation how the API authorization works.

------
drblast
Reading the transcripts there seems to be a lot of grandstanding. While it
makes for a nice drama, if these people were serious about protecting privacy
(haha), we'd be talking about meaningful privacy laws instead.

This reads like a group of senators begging Mark Zuckerberg to respect
privacy.

~~~
paxys
That is what these testimonies always turn into. The big Apple tax evasion
hearing a while ago was basically the senators taking turns to kiss Tim Cook's
ass.

------
kahlonel
I'm not from US, can someone explain how bad it is if anything that Zuckerberg
said during the whole session proves to be false/lie/wrong later on? Is it
considered perjury, or is perjury only specific for courts/legal matters?

~~~
tenpies
He was not under oath, so even if he was caught lying it is legally
inconsequential.

~~~
fiatpandas
Not true. You can face sentencing for lying or concealing information in such
a setting, even without taking an oath.

------
Simulacra
MZ has been well prepared it seems. They pay a LOT for their lobbyists, and
his answers have the very cogent, clear, forceful sound of someone who has
been well prepared.

~~~
dvt
Of course he's well prepped, he's a billionaire tech titan testifying before
Congress..

~~~
nerdface
… and a Cylon.

------
peter303
The idiot should have used a lawyer to OK every answer. He made several huge
legal errors by accepting full responsibility for content, always debatable
for a protected media carrier.

I am indifferent to whether Facebook survives, since I saw the poor privacy
control since the beginning. High flying social competitors like GeoCities and
MySpace died in the past. This could happen to Facebook too.

------
real-hacker
Yes, the hearing is a show. But... Yesterday, a major social network app in
China (Neihan), with hundreds of millions of users get shut down perpetually
by government orders. In the meantime, several major social products are
removed from China mobile app stores.

Just feel lucky you still have a hearing.

------
dejawu
I'm pretty impressed with how well the chairmen are grilling Mark. He's
dodging a bit and they're not having any of it.

I've never seen a hearing on this sort of thing before, but given the
generational gap and the news that Facebook had donated to the campaigns of
almost all of the people on the committee, I was expecting Zuck to get off
early.

~~~
Clanan
This _is_ him getting off easy. If the congresspeople really wanted to grill
him, they would have put him under oath.

------
sumoboy
Senators ranting on terms of service, nobody reads or understands these
documents for products or services.

------
BinaryIdiot
So this isn't exactly related to the testimony but I'm genuinely curious: is
it normal for someone giving testimony to use a booster like seat? I mean it
was a pretty thick cushion. I was surprised to see Zuck using one especially
since the seat is already padded.

------
frgtpsswrdlame
Total dodge on the question about shadow profiles. Here's hoping someone
follows up on that.

------
dingo_bat
Is there a youtube video to watch the full thing beginning to end? It's really
hard to read the article that is linked. It is interspersed with so many ads.
Kind of ironic.

------
a2tech
And he brought a booster seat! It’s hard to believe a billionaire has such
thin skin that he cares a whit about what people think about his height.

------
sumoboy
Zuck, "In general, I agree with you ..."

------
snissn
Another stream:
[https://www.bloomberg.com/live](https://www.bloomberg.com/live)

------
matte_black
FB stock rising, last chance to get in at these price levels, though you
should have bought in around 150s. 210 price target.

------
cynoclast
You can watch the whole thing here:
[https://www.c-span.org/video/?443543-1/facebook-ceo-mark-
zuc...](https://www.c-span.org/video/?443543-1/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-
testifies-data-protection&live)

My thought so far:

* he's fielding questions pretty well, honestly.

* He's donated to 46/55 of them: [https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/04/07/2326242/facebook-do...](https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/04/07/2326242/facebook-donated-to-46-of-55-members-on-committee-that-will-question-zuckerberg)

* Facebook mostly funds democrats: [https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000033563&ty...](https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000033563&type=P&cycle=A)

* Every single Democrat senator has brought up Russia

* This is being used to further the Russiagate narrative that benefits the DNC by distracting from [Democrat corruption]([http://observer.com/2016/07/clinton-rewards-wasserman-schult...](http://observer.com/2016/07/clinton-rewards-wasserman-schultzs-shady-behavior-with-new-job/))

tl;dr: More protection of the establishment in what is superficially the
grilling of a tech giant

------
AngeloAnolin
Waiting for official transcripts of this session so I could read and
understand better the discussion.

------
arosier
"Mr. Suckerberg" by the Chairman in his closing remarks was my favorite part!

------
yemper
Yeah, I saw this. It's crazy, went trending on twitter too. wew.

------
ship_it
@off: Mr. Hatch seems like a really smart man.

~~~
kzrdude
Do you mean that you agree with him?

~~~
Raphmedia
The people I admire the most are often those I disagree the most with. I fail
to see how thinking somebody is smart gives any hint as to whether he likes or
dislikes him.

------
bbimbop
How do you think this will impact the stock?

~~~
saagarjha
It's been going up for now.

------
randomsearch
Anyone who doesn't think Facebook has a monopoly should read "Zero to One" by
Peter Thiel. Seems people are missing some of the basics.

------
askari01
i think he will be cleared and nothing will happen, the current testimony was
a joke.

------
tek-cyb-org
I summon "Megadata"!!

------
kyleblarson
As if any of these politicians actually give a shit about the privacy of
American citizens. Pure theater.

~~~
hinkley
Terry Crews 2020:

Not the President we need, but the one we deserve.

~~~
r00fus
What's wrong with Terry?

~~~
hinkley
There's nothing wrong with Terry per se.

President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho on the other hand...

------
kzrdude
"What a story, only in America right?" [About facebook's origin]

Zuck: "Well, senator there are big Chinese internet compani.."

"The answer is yes, you're supposed to say yes".

So much about China. Only in America. The answer is mandatory, it's "Yes".

~~~
lvoudour
Didn't see the video, was the senator jesting or was he actually offended? (I
suppose it's the former but you never know)

~~~
18pfsmt
It was a joke, and everyone was laughing. Biggest audience response of the
testimony.

~~~
kzrdude
It's nice that the room understood that american exceptionalism is a joke.

~~~
HillaryBriss
It's not just a joke. It's the _best_ joke.

