
Testimony of Mark Zuckerberg – Hearing Before US House of Representatives [pdf] - uptown
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/20180411/108090/HHRG-115-IF00-Wstate-ZuckerbergM-20180411.pdf
======
jasode
_> But it’s clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from
being used for harm as well. That goes for [...] data privacy. We didn’t take
a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake. It was
my mistake, and I’m sorry._

I was going through some old news archives about Facebook and their privacy
policies. I came across the dire EFF warning in December 2009 [1]:

 _> "The issue of privacy when it comes to Facebook apps such as those
innocent-seeming quizzes has been well-publicized by our friends at the ACLU
and was a major concern for the Canadian Privacy Commissioner, which concluded
that app developers had far too much freedom to suck up users' personal data,
including the data of Facebook users who don't use apps at all. Facebook
previously offered a solution to users who didn't want their info being shared
with app developers over the Facebook Platform every time a one of their
friends added an app: users could select a privacy option telling Facebook to
"not share any information about me through the Facebook API.""_

Well, it turns out EFF was correct and accurately predicted the unethical
scenario of Cambridge Analytica siphoning data from Facebook users who didn't
even take their quiz.

The bullet points of "fixes" that MZ outlined don't really address the
fundamental problem. Facebook's "data privacy" problem is not fixable if they
have to ultimately run valuable ads against that data.

[1] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-
privacy-...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-
changes-good-bad-and-ugly)

~~~
downandout
_> The bullet points of "fixes" that MZ outlined don't really address the
fundamental problem. Facebook's "data privacy" problem is not fixable if they
have to ultimately run valuable ads against that data._

I wholly disagree. They don't have to disclose the data to anyone in order to
use it to target ads. Their targeting system works by allowing advertisers to
specify targeting criteria, and then using logic on Facebook's own servers to
match users to targeted ads. They aren't selling or disclosing the data to
_anyone_. People keep conflating the CA situation with the business of
targeted ads. One has nothing to do with the other.

~~~
confounded
Your argument makes sense as long as you consider something “private” if it’s
shared with Facebook _itself_.

You might, if you consider your personal interests to be consistently and
permanently aligned with the ToS which best serves shareholder interest of the
entity which controls the exploitation of the historical data, and on-going
surveillance capability.

The data is pretty much unregulated, and there’s no reason for it to ever be
deleted; given it’s size and value it’s likely to live-on much longer than
Facebook (the company/legal entity) as we know it today. If they got in
financial trouble, the prudent thing would be to flog the lot to a data broker
to be resold and repackaged indefinitely.

Facebook themselves have a long established reputation for doing whatever they
like and apologizing only if and when they get caught, and doing the minimum
possible to ward off regulation or churn.

Just like the use of the term “breach”, there’s a broader use of the term
which makes sense given the _expectations_ of a user-base that’s been kept in
the dark for years (as opposed to technical people with an understanding of
the industry).

For example, my contact list is not “private” if it’s exfiltrated from my
phone without my knowledge or consent, to be used for whatever purpose makes
most money to whoever controls it (currently Facebook), against a ToS which
can change at any time without notice, with almost no legal protection,
regulation, or oversight.

~~~
downandout
_Your argument makes sense as long as you consider something “private” if it’s
shared with Facebook itself._

If you consider something so “private” that you would be upset that an
algorithm on a secure serve might use it to target an ad to you - after you
read and agreed to exactly that behavior when signing up - perhaps you
shouldn’t have given it to them in the first place. At what point do you take
personal responsibility for giving away this information you consider to be so
private and valuable?

~~~
confounded
> _At what point do you take personal responsibility for giving away this
> information you consider to be so private and valuable?_

Informed consent seems like a reasonable place to start.

~~~
downandout
Yes, you were informed when you signed up. Your failure to read TOS, but agree
to them anyway, is nobody’s fault but your own. This whole culture of “well
yeah, I did it, but obviously that doesn’t mean I am responsible for it” is
ludicrous to me. We are all responsible for our own choices in life.

------
JumpCrisscross
"What We Are Doing" under the "Cambridge Analytica" section is crap, _i.e._
lightweight or hypothetical ( _e.g._ "we’re in the process of investigating
every app that had access to a large amount of information before we locked
down our platform in 2014").

By contrast, the same section under "Russian Election Interference" is well
thought out. There's some hand-wavy stuff ( _e.g._ "in the U.S. Senate Alabama
special election last year, we deployed new AI tools that proactively detected
and removed fake accounts from Macedonia trying to spread misinformation").
But requiring "every advertiser who wants to run political or issue
ads...confirm their identity and location" and mandating the ads "show...who
paid for them" is meaningful. That they're "starting this in the U.S. and
expanding to the rest of the world in the coming months" is more encouraging.
I'm also genuinely optimistic about their "tool that lets anyone see all of
the ads a page is running" and "searchable archive of past political ads."

With Cambridge Analytica, a core component of Facebook's advertising business
model is threatened. Hence the inaction. With Russia, Facebook and political
advertisers' interests are aligned. Hence, action.

~~~
oconnor663
> With Cambridge Analytica, a core component of Facebook's advertising
> business model is threatened. Hence the inaction.

If they already disabled the API that CA was using, is "inaction" really the
right word?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _If they already disabled the API that CA was using, is "inaction" really
> the right word?_

You don't find yourself testifying to the Congress because of a single
technical loophole. This happens when a series of failures occur and fail to
be remedied. In some cases they may not even be seen, internally, as failures
[1][2].

Zuckerberg is there to tell the Congress "you can trust me." The Congress
wants him to say that publicly to gauge if there's political will, amongst
voters, to go after Facebook. Treating this as a narrow reaction to limited
failures as opposed to a general questioning of the viability of an
internationally-scoped ad-driven politically-volatile social network is what I
expect Zuckerberg to do, and why I expect him to fall down.

[1] [https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/30/17179100/facebook-memo-
le...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/30/17179100/facebook-memo-leaks-boz-
andrew-bosworth)

[2]
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2018/03/25/faceboo...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2018/03/25/facebook-
android-data-collection/#5a25f38325db)

------
VikingCoder
I do this often:

1) Go to pcpartpicker, pick Storage, sort by Price/GB:

[https://pcpartpicker.com/products/internal-hard-
drive/#sort=...](https://pcpartpicker.com/products/internal-hard-
drive/#sort=ppgb&page=1)

3TB (for $57.50)

2) Go to Google, look up number of people in the United States:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=us+population](https://www.google.com/search?q=us+population)

325.7 million

3) Divide

You can store 9.2 kilobytes for every single person in the United States, for
just $57.50.

9.2 kilobytes is actually a pretty decent amount of data. For comparison, this
is Chapter 40 of Pride and Prejudice, at 9kb:

[http://www.kellynch.com/e-texts/Pride%20and%20Prejudice/Prid...](http://www.kellynch.com/e-texts/Pride%20and%20Prejudice/Pride%20and%20Prejudice,%20Chapter%2039.txt)

The complete works of Shakespeare fit into 5 MB.

To store the equivalent of the complete works of Shakespeare for every person
in the US would cost: $31,222.50.

Heck, I know small businesses that could afford that, let alone the mega-corp
media conglomerates.

How much data does Verizon store about me? Comcast? Target? Visa?

~~~
askafriend
This line of thinking is extremely reductionist to the point of uselessness.
Anyone who's built products at scale can tell you this. There are thousands of
things you aren't thinking of.

~~~
uryga
Why is it useless?

~~~
askafriend
Say you buy those drives.

What's the cost to implement GDPR? What about storing high definition photos?
What does availability across regions look like? What does latency look like?
What does backup look like?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

~~~
lainga
Say I am an unhinged individual with $120 and I buy that one (1) drive.

>What's the cost to implement GDPR?: I laugh and continue to compile a list of
where all crossbow enthusiasts with type-O blood have been in the past 6
months.

>What about storing high definition photos?: Facebook can handle that. All I
want to do is store a 9KB index file on every US citizen, because I believe I
am a vampiric J. Edgar Hoover.

>What does availability across regions look like?: The drive sits in my mom's
basement as I continue to scrape crossbowforums.org against the Red Cross
donors list.

>What does latency look like?: I guess however well a 50-centimeter SATA cable
does.

>What does backup look like?: I buy two drives at once for $115 and get free
shipping on the second one.

------
corrigible
"From now on, every advertiser who wants to run political or issue ads will
need to be authorized. To get authorized, advertisers will need to confirm
their identity and location. Any advertiser who doesn’t pass will be
prohibited from running political or issue ads. We will also label them and
advertisers will have to show you who paid for them. We’re starting this in
the U.S. and expanding to the rest of the world in the coming months."

Interesting!

~~~
PurpleBoxDragon
Edit: I mistook this from being a government action, not a private company
action. I totally agree a private company is allowed to restrict things in
this way.

>Any advertiser who doesn’t pass will be prohibited from running political or
issue ads.

How does this interact with the First Amendment? If I'm paying for a local TV
company to run an add, wouldn't restricting my ability be in violation? What
if I buy the local TV company and choose which ads are ran?

Edit: What about non-political or non-issue ads that still have a political
component? For example, if I was a billionaire wanting to cause some certain
political divides, I could definitely create ads that still cause great
controversy. For example, spend some money developing a bullet proof school
outfit, and then advertise it heavily. It is a bunch of extra work and
expenditure I wouldn't do if I could just run gun control ads, but if those
were banned are you going to ban any advertisements related to any merchandise
that is related to political issues?

~~~
cazum
A private advertising medium (Facebook, twitter, the TV station, etc) are not
responsible for upholding your first amendment right to free speech. They are
a private entity that get to decide what gets published on their platform.

The first amendment only frees your speech from state suppression.

~~~
PurpleBoxDragon
Yeah, upon rereading it I realize it was speaking from the point of Facebook.
I though it had been speaking from the point of a government requirement, as
in making a suggestion of what should be required by law. That one was my
mistake.

------
vthallam
>We also learned about a disinformation campaign run by the Internet Research
Agency (IRA) — a Russian agency that has repeatedly acted deceptively and
tried to manipulate people in the US, Europe, and Russia. We found about 470
accounts and pages linked to the IRA, which generated around 80,000 Facebook
posts over about a two-year period. Our best estimate is that approximately
126 million people may have been served content from a Facebook Page
associated with the IRA at some point during that period. On Instagram, where
our data on reach is not as complete, we found about 120,000 pieces of
content, and estimate that an additional 20 million people were likely served
it.

This part seems to be rather interesting. The number of people who viewed the
content created by IRA in general is appalling.

~~~
dfxm12
Is this appalling? What's appalling to me is the number of people who can't
tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

I'm sure governments are going to come down hard on Zuck for "allowing
disinformation to be spread", but won't give a second thought about cutting
education budgets.

It's hard for politicians to make it illegal to lie or to run a platform where
people might lie. People are always going to lie and try to deceive others. It
would be more effective for these politicians to actually educate their
constituents. This is just one of many benefits of having educated
citizenry...

~~~
leggomylibro
It can be easy for some people to forget that most people are generally
spiteful, vindictive, petty jerks who can't look past the chips on their own
shoulders and only rarely act kindly towards people who they want something
from.

It's not that people don't deserve compassion and empathy, but don't ever
expect positive things from others if you want to avoid spending your life
perpetually disappointed.

~~~
wccrawford
Most people? No. But there are enough "spiteful, vindictive, petty jerks" out
there that they need to be taken into consideration.

~~~
leggomylibro
Well, I envy you your life experience but that doesn't look like the case from
my viewpoint.

------
fortythirteen
> In 2007, we launched the Facebook Platform with the vision that more apps
> should be social. Your calendar should be able to show your friends’
> birthdays, your maps should show where your friends live, and your address
> book should show their pictures. To do this, we enabled people to log into
> apps and share who their friends were and some information about them.

Anyone who was in a FB sales meeting when OpenGraph was launched knows this is
a very calculated understatement. I've heard them explicitly sell the
information of an entire user's friends list to anyone willing to pay.

~~~
squeaky-clean
> I've heard them explicitly sell the information of an entire user's friends
> list to anyone willing to pay.

Source? If this were true and they'd do it for anyone willing to pay, where
can I give them money for user's personal data?

~~~
methodover
There is no source, because it's bullshit. FB has never sold access to their
API. Access to the friend's data permission, like all other permissions, was
free.

------
fortythirteen
> "It’s not enough to just connect people, we have to make sure those
> connections are positive. It’s not enough to just give people a voice, we
> have to make sure people aren’t using it to hurt people or spread
> misinformation."

And be sure to report your fellow citizens for reeducation when they spread
"negativity" and "misinformed opinions".

------
shamino
Before anyone says Facebook's testimony is just fluff, we're a business that
relies on Facebook's API to monitor activity, and we've been severely
impacted. We no longer can get data as before - it's having a large effect on
our business. So we definitely feel that action is being taken.

~~~
gaius
_We no longer can get data as before - it 's having a large effect on our
business_

What sort of honest business depends on the Facebook API?

~~~
themgt
We were scraping data for a client for public events like music shows,
business special days/etc, and that's been severely shut down and apparently
on hold to approve any new apps. Again this is just getting like the
date/location/ticket URL for a public page FB event that presumably businesses
want people to know about - no private data about attendees/humans at all.

~~~
gaius
That seems like a legitimate use case.

(it was a genuine question!)

------
joshuaheard
I am not greatly concerned with Facebook's privacy policy. People voluntarily
give up their personal information in order to use this free service.

I am more concerned about his identification of "fake news" and "hate speech"
as issues without any clarification. These are both subjective descriptions
with the potential for damaging abuse, which we are already seeing with the
banning of Diamonds and Silk from Facebook.

In my opinion, Facebook, Google, and other social media platforms should be
required to be content neutral and its users given first amendment protection
(with its concomitant limits). This would require federal legislation.

~~~
tripplethrendo
I get a chill down my spine any time someone uses the phrase "hate speech".
Who gets to decide what qualifies? The first amendment must be protected at
all costs.

~~~
80386
Whoever's exploiting the network effects decides what qualifies, and the First
Amendment doesn't apply to them.

It's heartening that OStatus (GNU Social, Mastodon, Pleroma, etc.) are getting
some uptake, but existing federated networks are even more poorly equipped to
compete with Facebook than with Twitter and Tumblr. The nice thing about
Facebook is its privacy settings -- I can, say, post about going to Pride and
make sure no one in my family sees it.

The problem is, Facebook could set up its rules so that campaign messaging for
candidates they dislike just happens to violate them, and campaign messaging
for candidates they like just happens not to. There's a lot of potential for
abuse of power here.

It seems like a lot of people aren't worried about that, because they figure
the targets of the current uses of this power really need to be suppressed.
But there's no reason this power can't be directed elsewhere. I bet there are
people who thought it was OK to fire us for being gay who are now pretty mad
that people can be fired for donating to Prop 8.

------
frgtpsswrdlame
Seems weak, I hope some of the representatives have read Tim Wu.

For example when Zuck says:

>My top priority has always been our social mission of connecting people,
building community and bringing the world closer together. Advertisers and
developers will never take priority over that as long as I’m running Facebook.

This is either misleading or a lie. Facebook is a corporation, what Zuckerberg
wants to do as an individual isn't even relevant, what's relevant is what the
corporation "wants" to do to increase profit. So far that has been pursuing
connecting people and building communities and then taking that information
and selling it to developers and advertisers. The phrasing places community
and monetization in competition but Facebook's model isn't of competition
between those it's model is a monetization _of_ community. So the testimony
never speaks to the fundamental problem of having advertisers as any level of
priority here.

Also to say that Cambridge Analytica abused the system sidesteps the issue of
whether it was in Facebook's interest to allow this data to be collected and
then misused. Cambridge Analytica purchased data which made Facebook the most
attractive advertising platform for them because of the targeting they could
do. That is good for Facebook's bottom line. They also don't address the total
amount of information that may be out there, floating through advertisers
outside of Facebook's control right now. Despite new restrictions how much
about me is already out there? That's what I want to know.

Overall, it's basically what I expected but I really hope there are a few
representatives who can set aside the specifics of this one incident and
attack the wider notion of Facebook's purpose.

~~~
jaibot
> Facebook is a corporation, what Zuckerberg wants to do as an individual
> isn't even relevant

Zuck is a majority shareholder, so what he wants to do as an individual can
actually be fairly significant here.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
Fair. Perhaps the most salient criticism is that Zuckerberg's top priority is
connecting people because his company is designed to use those connections in
order to sell lots of advertising.

~~~
methodover
Advertising is the best way to pay for the servers, lawyers, developers,
office space, and everything else FB needs, while keeping the cost for users
low.

I believe they are investigating options for letting you pay for FB to turn
off advertisements, however.

In the end, it's hard to know for sure what Mark's true motivations are, just
as it is for anyone else. The only person who knows Mark's true intentions is
Mark. That said, I personally believe him. When I listen to him talk about
what he wants to do with Facebook, it seems obvious to me that he has good
intentions at heart.

He's about my age, and when I was young the internet let me communicate with
people from different areas of the world, different backgrounds, and helped me
expand my own understanding of humanity. The internet made me a better person
-- a more tolerant, more thoughtful, less prejudiced person. I hoped that the
internet could facilitate the same personal growth in the rest of humanity,
too. By drawing people together from the disparate corners of the world
online, we could become a more tolerant, more understanding species. Mark has
said similar things.

Unfortunately, things haven't quite worked out as he, or I, hoped, it seems.
=(

~~~
rock_hard
about same age too and you express well how I feel about the situation.

We are not done here though, the fight to use the internet to connect the
world continues!

------
thedrake
Here is the personality insight from IBM Watson on the text
[https://www.dropbox.com/s/j4ftupd4jd612ma/Screen%20Shot%2020...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/j4ftupd4jd612ma/Screen%20Shot%202018-04-09%20at%202.18.00%20PM.png?dl=0)

(using [https://personality-insights-
demo.ng.bluemix.net/](https://personality-insights-demo.ng.bluemix.net/))

~~~
rspeer
It saddens me that IBM is setting the expectations so low for natural language
processing that they're basically reducing it to a Myers-Briggs test.

------
bo1024
Interesting. He really puts Facebook into the role of policing its users (and
advertisers). He describes taking down thousands of fake accounts,
investigating whether certain pages have connections with IRA and taking them
down if so.

This will probably sound reassuring to legislators, but it pretty much
permanently accepts the burden of responsibility for misinformation on the
site. It sounds likely to force Facebook into a costly permanent arms race
against every malicious political actor in the world. I wonder how regular
users will get caught in the crossfire.

Not that I feel bad for FB here -- they make tons of money because they have
the most captive attention of any entity in the world. Attention is valuable
because it allows platforms to influence people's behavior toward certain
actions. Advertisers are not the only ones who realize this, and FB has to
take responsibility for all forms of influence on its site, not just
commercial ads.

~~~
btilly
Actually under section 310, he doesn't bear liability for failures.

However SESTA and FOSTA have eroded that for "sex trafficking". I expect more
exceptions to sneak in.

------
sandov
As shitty as Facebook is as a service, I don't think they should have any
legal obligation to 'protect' users from their own neglect.

I don't use facebook, because I think a free-software based & decentralized
social network would be the right way to do social networking, but if the rest
of the people want to give away their info, fine by me.

If someone I know wants to give my info to fb, it's fine too, but he/she loses
part of my trust.

I value the freedom to do whatever you want with the data you have more than
the convenience of the government protecting whatever data I foolishly gave
away to someone.

~~~
platz
You make it sound like the users aren't even on the Facebook site. Remember
that the 'users' are using a _Facebook_ service, a consumer product provided
by Facebook. They are responsible for what the product is, and does,
regardless of what the users think.

~~~
sixothree
Do we need to keep reminding people that even if you never created an account,
you have a facebook user associated with your real life identity.

------
wiz21c
I stopped reading at that paragraph. That Zuckerberg is seriously out of its
league.

>> It’s not enough to just connect people, we have to make sure those
connections are positive.

Does he really think he can define what "positive" means with a platform
hosting hundred of millions of communications ? There is no positive, there's
human nature. Regulating that by FB itself won't work but worse, it will be a
tyranny. The gated wall of FB will mean gated psychology, sociology, etc. FB
could be great if it was run by people who think about people, not
shareholders...

------
notananthem
All this says is they don't have control over their network and they're just
bleeding out data everywhere. The primary takeaway especially with regard to
the election tampering is that this (Facebook) is a huge, free, open tool to
abuse and control elections.

------
AzzieElbab
Your credit data had been stolen, your health data had been stolen, your
government records every word you say online, your "smart" fridge is ddosing
wikipedia, you worry about being unreachable by silly spam that may or may not
effect your voting for one of the two equally horrible politicians

------
Mc_Big_G
"This is me telling you what you want to hear, but I don't mean a word of it
and I will continue to get away with whatever I can until I get caught at
which time I will tell you what you want to hear again."

~~~
cycrutchfield
“Dumb fucks”

------
leviathan
Why is the date set in the future? April 11?

~~~
throwaway2048
This is the notes he will be presenting.

~~~
warent
This really confused me, thanks for the clarification

------
nothis
What exactly is this, and why is it dated 2 days from now?

~~~
TranceMan
Good catch -
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43698739](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43698739)

Edit - Explanation:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16795723](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16795723)

------
llbowers
Surprised at Zuckerberg/Facebook's response to all this. The cynical part of
me says it's only due to the negative PR all this has generated but I hope
this works out for better privacy for all those who continue to use Facebook.

I wonder if other tech companies will be called on to testify, Dorsey, Page,
et. al.

------
quantumwoke
It's good to see Zuckerberg taking swift and decisive action to try and plug
the leaks related to Cambridge Analytica. I think that it is sorely needed,
and it is probably too late for many on the Facebook platform.

However, what's more interesting to me is the disturbing details about the
spread of political advertising on Facebook. It seems that elections were much
more heavily data mined and influenced than before. A nation state level
attack on elections seems plausible and highly achievable, and was done not
just in the US but France, Germany and elsewhere.

I will be closely following whether the radical transparency measures proposed
will have much impact given the upcoming elections in much more corruption
prone countries such as India.

~~~
ForHackernews
You can't plug a data leak. It's too late. The data is out there in the wild
and will be forever: [https://slate.com/technology/2018/04/facebook-cant-
clean-up-...](https://slate.com/technology/2018/04/facebook-cant-clean-up-its-
data-spill.html)

~~~
atwebb
It does become less relevant, moreso when the existence of the data itself is
a major story.

~~~
ForHackernews
I guess it depends what use somebody can make of the data itself. Presumably
human psychology doesn't change very much, so you could still use it to train
and validate models years or decades later.

~~~
rhizome
Not to mention using it to support a status quo that prevents the information
from aging so quickly, maintaining its relevance. News about rocks will remain
popular if the spear is never invented.

------
perseusprime11
Did anyone look at the pictures of him at the hearing? I am now certain
zuckerberg sent a robot instead of him. You can tell by the lifeless emotiona.

------
sorenn111
I am fascinated to watch his testimony. Regardless of what is submitted, it
will be highly interesting to see him deliver these words and stand up to
questioning.

~~~
maxerickson
This written testimony is offered in addition to his in person testimony, he
won't repeat it.

That way Congress has both the information "for the record" and the
opportunity to grandstand.

------
cheez
Chrome web store should be locking things down as well. But that's a bit more
difficult.

------
fortythirteen
> "Facebook is an idealistic and optimistic company. For most of our
> existence, we focused on all the good that connecting people can bring." \-
> Mark Zuckerberg 2018

> "They trust me — dumb fucks." \- Mark Zuckerberg 2010

Interesting placement of "most"

~~~
ihuman
That second quote is from 2004, although it wasn't reported until 2010

~~~
cheez
Plus, he was a kid.

------
_o_
Zuckerberg will tell to the whole world they are sorry and they will do
everything in their power that CA will not happen again and people will
forget. But the issue is not in CA abusing the access. The issue is they are
having the data. And they can and they are abusing them in same manner as CA
did. CA is just a good example how much power you have with the information
the FB has. And they have more. FB is public enemy #1 on global scale and they
should be shot down. They're corrupting the whole society and this has to stop
wherever you like them or not.

------
bitmadness
I'm confused - did he read all that as his opening remarks? Seems pretty
wrong, but it's written that way...

------
stirner
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don't know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb fucks

~~~
sctb
Please, enough with this. The tedium is overwhelming.

