
Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham - DyslexicAtheist
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/11/mark-zuckerbergs-facebook-hearing-sham
======
spacehome
I was struck that on the surface it looked quite adversarial. Senators were
trying to ask fairly pointed questions (despite any technical ignorance). But
underneath the surface, the two parties here have fairly well aligned goals --
less freedom on the Internet. The senators want to show that they're doing
something, and Facebook welcomes regulation in order to suffocate would-be
competitors with it. I'm sure they're going to collaborate to find something
that works well for both of their interests. We're witnessing the death of the
free internet. It was a nice experiment while it lasted.

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
it was a sham because asking hard questions would require them to admit FB
being an important asset for US own intelligence operations.

If they drill too deep they'd need to face very uncomfortable questions about
other platforms too, e.g Palantir (Thiel was right there lurking ;)). Facebook
_is_ the Internet in many countries (making them less resilient and even more
prone to meddling than the US). And so looking at it from the IC perspective
FB is too big to fail:

\- Remember Palantir worked with CA on the Facebook data it acquired:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16690721](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16690721)

\- Remember how confident in May 2016 Thiel was of a Trump presidency and when
he openly started endorsing Trump? Was he operating with more knowledge than
available to the general public: [http://fortune.com/2016/05/10/peter-thiel-
trump-delegate/](http://fortune.com/2016/05/10/peter-thiel-trump-delegate/)

\- His $1.25 million donation in October 2016 seems even more interesting now:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/technology/peter-thiel-
do...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/technology/peter-thiel-donald-j-
trump.html)

\- Leaked Palantir Doc Reveals Uses, Specific Functions And Key Clients
[https://techcrunch.com/2015/01/11/leaked-palantir-doc-
reveal...](https://techcrunch.com/2015/01/11/leaked-palantir-doc-reveals-uses-
specific-functions-and-key-clients/)

\- This is who runs PRISM: [https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/is-this-who-
runs-prism](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/is-this-who-runs-prism)

Oh and Palantir enables Immigration Agents to Access Information From the CIA:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13895827](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13895827)

Also more uncomfortable questions:
[https://twitter.com/RidT/status/983789426340921349](https://twitter.com/RidT/status/983789426340921349)

~~~
aphexairlines
Here's the Palantir section of the hearing.

[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/?utm_term=.b58b82c59bbc)

 _SEN. MARIA CANTWELL (D-WASH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome Mr. Zuckerberg.

Do you know who Palantir is?

ZUCKERBERG: I do.

CANTWELL: Some people refer to them as a Stanford Analytica. Do you agree?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, I have not heard that.

CANTWELL: Okay.

Do you think Palantir taught Cambridge Analytica, as press reports are saying,
how to do these tactics?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, I do not know.

CANTWELL: Do you think that Palantir has ever scraped data from Facebook?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, I'm not aware of that.

...

CANTWELL: Have you heard of Total Information Awareness? Do you know what I'm
talking about?

ZUCKERBERG: No, I do not.

CANTWELL: Okay. Total Information Awareness was, 2003, John Ashcroft and
others trying to do similar things to what I think is behind all of this —
geopolitical forces trying to get data and information to influence a process.

So, when I look at Palantir and what they're doing; and I look at WhatsApp,
which is another acquisition; and I look at where you are, from the 2011
consent decree, and where you are today; I am thinking, “Is this guy outfoxing
the foxes? Or is he going along with what is a major trend in an information
age, to try to harvest information for political forces?”

And so my question to you is, do you see that those applications, that those
companies — Palantir and even WhatsApp — are going to fall into the same
situation that you've just fallen into, over the last several years?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, I'm not — I'm not sure, specifically. Overall, I — I do
think that these issues around information access are challenging.

To the specifics about those apps, I'm not really that familiar with what
Palantir does. WhatsApp collects very little information and, I — I think, is
less likely to have the kind of issues because of the way that the service is
architected. But, certainly, I think that these are broad issues across the
tech industry._

~~~
e12e
> CANTWELL: Have you heard of Total Information Awareness? Do you know what
> I'm talking about?

> ZUCKERBERG: No, I do not.

Hard to believe someone who has spent the past decade looking at how to
monetize data has never heard of TIA.

~~~
Bartweiss
I mean, it's probably more convincing than _" I'm not really that familiar
with what Palantir does"_.

Your average Ivy League CS grad is familiar with the bottom-line summary of
what Palantir does - all the claims about secret projects aside, they do give
tech talks and put product demos online. Zuckerberg is claiming he's not even
familiar with that stuff?

------
Deimorz
The article points out that the extremely short time limit for each senator's
questions made following up on anything almost impossible, but their overall
poor understanding of the topic was just as significant.

It was obvious that, for a lot of the senators, the questions had been
supplied to them and they didn't really understand what they were asking
beyond a superficial level. They'd start out with a pretty solid question or
two, but then be completely unable to follow up. Quite a few of them ended up
wasting almost their whole time getting sidetracked by unimportant
misunderstandings.

~~~
Casseres
They should have had subject matter experts asking the questions. Instead
there were people had no idea what they were talking about, wasting time on
shout-outs to their sons/nephews or whomever (I was only able to follow it for
a minute).

The CEO needed to be under oath so that lying would carry consequences, and
they needed someone who could cut through the BS of how some of the answers
were worded.

We need more programmers, engineers, etc running for office.

~~~
afarrell
But it would be more important for those engineers would also need to have a
solid understanding of the law, which is a highly detailed and nuanced field.
I think this isn't an implementable solution. Maybe you get a more-
technically-knowledgable version of Ron Wyden who then sits on several
subcommittees, but you're not going to get 10% of the Senate to be software
engineers. After all, one could just as easily say that we need more senators
who are nurses, petroleum engineers, hydrological engineers, pilots, soldiers,
teachers, tax accountants, actuaries...

I think a better solution would be either:

1) When elected officials run for office, they explicitly state who their go-
to advisor for internet and technology matters is. That way, they are not so
reliant on the technical advice of lobbyists. The flaw in this is that now
those advisors' opinions on unrelated matters are subject to scrutiny. I can
easily imagine a scandal because it turns out that some senator's advisor said
something dumb about abortion 5 years prior to an election. I'd like to say
"well, don't judge the advisor on things unrelated to their area of
expertise", but where do you draw that boundary? Is someone's opinion on
domestic violence or prostitution really irrelevant to how they advise a
senator on FOSTA?

2) The UK has been framing the House of Lords as a council of experts for a
while now. I don't know how well it actually works as one though.

~~~
mostlyskeptical
Doesn't the house of Lords have some members appointed by the church, others
by birth, women weren't allowed to be Lords spiritual until 2015, and women
still aren't allowed to inherit some seats today?

Hard to take that seriously in any regard, much less as 'experts'.

~~~
tialaramex
How would bishops not qualify as experts? To be sure I have no interest in the
thing they're experts in, but I could say the same for performance art or
make-up and presumably there are experts in those fields too.

You can't inherit any of the seats any more, you can inherit a title that
means the other Lords could pick you for their chamber without anybody else
sending you, this was supposed to be temporary but no other mechanism has ever
been approved to replace it. But nobody automatically gets a seat, either they
were sent there or they were chosen by the others.

------
kaitnieks
Maybe I'm too cynical about politics, but it appears to me that the point of
these hearings is not to solve or investigate anything, it's to generate
soundbites that voters or potential future voters would like. It's not even
that important what the reply is, as long as the politician asks the hard
question and demonstrates his concern, and if it makes the news & press,
that's victory for them.

~~~
austenallred
Note how many of the senators who voted to expand surveillance programs and
the NSA became suddenly very concerned for privacy. They just wanted to try
and dunk on him and get in a sound bite.

~~~
fullshark
And the guardian is pissed that the dunks weren't fierce enough I guess. I'm
not sure what they expected, I thought it was like every congressional hearing
ever.

------
lazugod
A photographer present at the hearings was able to get a picture of the notes
Zuckerberg brought:
[https://twitter.com/becket/status/983846618263891968](https://twitter.com/becket/status/983846618263891968).

------
chiefalchemist
These are the same elected officials that approved ISPs selling usage data?
The same officials that were silent when Snowden released what he had? Etc.

Do I trust MZ and FB? Yes, as much as I trust Uncle Sam. Hint: Not much. The
sham is on us. Again.

~~~
listenallyall
+1. Zuckerberg should have pointed out exactly who voted for the renewal of
the FISA surveillance program in Jan. "Look, if an American citizen is angry
enough and chooses to never share any more data with Facebook, s/he has that
right and the ability. With the NSA/CIA/FBI/TSA/Homeland Security/traffic
cameras/license plate readers/stingrays, there is no opt-out. Period."

~~~
chiefalchemist
In theory yes. It would be entertaining.

The reality is, he'd be screwed.

Nor can we discount FB isn't a favored front of sorts for various "data
collection agencies."

p.s. I find it (sadly) funny how so many are upset with ZM and FB, but are
completely unaware about Snowden, Obama's expansion of the Patriot Act, etc.

FB is the obvious scapegoat. It currently has to play the role, even if it
hates doing so. But for how long?

~~~
mistermann
This is a good explanation of why this hearing was so poorly designed such
that nothing could be discovered. I highly doubt it was accidental.

~~~
mmd45
What type of discovery would you like to make? It seems to me that whatever fb
has they control and do with as they please and have the money for lobbyists
and lawyers to corporate-splain their actions away and pay the occasional fine
(cost of doing business). I'm having a hard time understanding why any of what
is known is at all a surprise to someone who understands tech.

~~~
mistermann
If a qualified person was asking the questions, the public would then know the
reality of the situation, as well as get a decent look into how honest Mr.
Zuckerberg is.

I suspect what we watched was fairly well scripted theater, right down to the
humiliating booster seat as well as the talking points cheat sheet that he
"accidentally" let a reporter get a picture of. This wasn't about discovery,
truth, or justice, it is about shaping public opinion.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe what comes out of this will be some reasonable
regulations that the technical community will more or less agree do in fact
provide substantial improvements to privacy of individuals. I'd happily take
the other side of that bet though.

~~~
18pfsmt
I am of the opinion that if we let FB continue in its reckless treatment of
its users data, people will eventually flock to a better platform when one
emerges. UseNet/IRC were much better social platforms for privacy, but the
ease of use/convenience much worse.

I am glad of this whole debacle simply because people won't act like I'm a
freak anymore just because I won't use FB.

------
dosycorp
Mark is more like an Emperor come to visit affiliated crowns than a servant
being questioned by his masters.

Maybe the Senate’s deference in part is motivated by their belief he may run
and win in a few years and they hope to win favor from a man they may end up
working for.

Secondly perhaps it is motivated by them not wanting to appear too
knowledgeable nor too much of a threat to Mark, to put him at ease, lest they
otherwise provoke his wrath.

Third I think their attitude is certainly motivated by the awareness, from
those in governments, just how powerful internet giants, particularly FB, are.
I believe in no small ways have these companies upended the conventional
relationships of individuals, and corporate individuals, to the state. They
command vast resources, such as people and intelligence ( and automated
processes pertaining to them, i.e, algorithms or bureaucracy, pick your
favorite term ), traditionally the purview only of state entities.

I’m quite sure that many in government consider these companies are direct
threats to the future of their model of governance. But they also feel they
must handle them very delicately. Because they do not want to risk a premature
confrontation they are unprepared for.

But if any person alive today was going to mount some sort of the future coup
against conventional government, spearheaded by the new tech elite, then Mark
is a perfect candidate. He is a student of history and demonstratedly
strategically effective.

In this light, perhaps the biggest takeaway of a public questioning such as
this is how much of a theatrical side show and possibly a distraction it is
from the new reality these powerful groups find themselves contesting.

~~~
panic
_> Maybe the Senate’s deference in part is motivated by their belief he may
run and win in a few years and they hope to win favor from a man they may end
up working for._

The US Senate doesn't work for the President. They're part of independent
branches of government.

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
And it's beyond naive to think Zuckerberg could ever win for President.

Just because Trump could do it, doesn't mean Zuck could.

You have to be likeable. You have to be good on camera. He was the villain in
his own movie for gods sake.

Conservatives hate him because he is a liberal nerd. Liberals hate him because
he is a corporate tool.

We will accept stupid. We will accept dishonest. We will accept mean.

But we won't accept entitlement or arrogance. There is nothing less popular
than a genius or wealthy person who knows they matter more than normal people
and acts like it.

Trying to act like a "normal person" is the most important part of being a
politician. He will never do that to an acceptable level.

He may have an advantage no one else does, with demographic info from
Facebook. He may be the person who could basically appoint any person he wants
to the office of the Presidency. But that doesn't mean he could appoint
himself.

------
gaius
If a person logs out of Facebook, and Facebook continues to track them anyway,
then that’s clearly violating consent, and there was a meeting where someone
said “we need a way to track people who explicitly do not want to be tracked”
and everyone in the room nodded.

~~~
notspanishflu
Facebook tracks everyone, every time. Tracks users and non users. Tracks even
people trying to avoid that company.

For example, the infamous pixel code.

    
    
      <!-- Facebook Pixel Code -->
    			<script>
    			!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
    			n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;
    			n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
    			t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,
    			document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');
    			fbq('init', '477623695968553' );			fbq('track', 'PageView');
    
    			</script>
    			<noscript><img height="1" width="1" style="display:none"
    			src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=477623695968553&ev=PageView&noscript=1"
    			/></noscript>
    			<!-- DO NOT MODIFY -->
    			<!-- End Facebook Pixel Code -->

~~~
gargravarr
I have NoScript set to blacklist any JS from any Facebook domain. Breaking
half the internet by default is worth it to neuter this invasive tracking.

~~~
wila
NoScript doesn't stop the tracking. See the noscript tags in the html example
of the post you replied to.

~~~
nathcd
This is one of the reasons I really like uMatrix. In addition to giving really
fine-grained controls over what you load (by type of asset, by domain given
current domain), it gives you really great visibility into what a webpage is
doing, and where it's sending data. I have mine set up to act like NoScript by
default -- to block first-party JS.

You end up noticing some surprising things. For example, yesterday I read an
article ([http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/10/how-to-build-a-low-
te...](http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/10/how-to-build-a-low-tech-
internet.html)) from Low-Tech Magazine, about how to build a "low-tech
internet" (an article I really liked, BTW). Happily, the page loaded just fine
without any JavaScript, but I still noticed in my uMatrix panel that the page
was trying to load various assets from 20-some domains, about half of which
uMatrix recognizes as tracking domains. A little disconcerting for a site
called Low-Tech Magazine.

~~~
gargravarr
Appropriately, the very site this article is sourced from, The Guardian,
readily derided Facebook for its invasive tracking aspects. Another link on HN
then pointed out that The Guardian themselves spread data out to 56 tracking
services.

Que sera.

------
lwansbrough
I believe writers from the Guardian would sooner hand over control of the
United States to the EU rather than try to understand why the US does things
differently; but I think this question bears repeating: ethically, what has
Facebook done wrong?

Understanding the full context of this hearing is vital to your opinion on the
matter. I'm nobody with an outsider's perspective, but to me Facebook has made
very few errors in bad faith. This whole uproar has been about Facebook's well
known (or, what I once thought was well know, I guess) practices as a data and
advertising platform. We know Facebook cooperates with governments around the
world to produce data on its citizens. We know what can happen with our data
if we _let_ it fall into the wrong hands.

I started using Facebook when I was 13 in 2007. (As a side note, I think
Facebook should not be sharing data about minors to any parties.) I filled out
a fair few questionnaires and I may have even participated in "Your digital
life" somewhere along the line. At that time I started using Facebook it was
providing an interface for establishing informed consent (basically their
OAuth flow), to the extent at which it was reasonable for them (which to this
day extends beyond the requirements of the law in the US as far as I know.) I
consented to sharing my data with the 3rd party, which was essentially a
license for that party to own that data. I knew that, and I did it anyway
because I couldn't predict the ramifications of its collection and aggregation
by a hostile party.

I think the people who are most upset about this whole controversy are the
ones who blame it for Russia's Active Measures.

In my opinion, the solution isn't a GDPR-esque approach. I think we have to
teach people why data is valuable and how it can be used against them. This is
important for both creating an intellectual barrier to the efficacy of
propaganda and so that people can make real, informed decisions about their
privacy so that when they're asked if they want to share their friends'
birthdates and phone numbers, they know what their answer should be.

~~~
5555624
When you signed up for Facebook, was there a screen that said, "Facebook will
take all the information you provide, regardless of format or intent, and
monetize it as much as possible, as well as share it with government
agencies"? You knew this going in. Many people know this and don't have
Facebook account. A lot of people did not know this and are just finding out
-- that's where the "outrage" comes out. (A fourth group are those who didn't
know and don't care.)

What might be worse is that had Facebook actually put that screen up, most
people would not have bothered to read it. Very few people ever read "Terms &
Conditions" and that's a problem. (Just like not reading "Permissions" when
installing an app.)

~~~
sametmax
Exactly.

Facebook is a bad actor. It's good if we can do something about it.

But Facebook is not the root of the problem. There will always be bad actors.

The root of the problem is that people don't care.

I told me friends and relative, again and again, about those issues. I
answered any question. I did research, on MY time, to answer their concerns,
for them who would not dare spending a second on it. I listened patiently to
the witty comments on the fact I didn't have a FB account, for years.

They just didn't care enough to make any effort, any change.

And they still don't, no matter what the scandal feels right now. They will
forget tomorrow.

And even if they didn't, they will blame the bad actor, not their choice. And
it will start all over again with another bad actor. That's what happen with
crazy ex, lying politicians and bad movies.

Now I (somewhat) get that choosing what you buy has a high impact on you life,
and so I gave up on expecting people to vote with their wallet. It's sad,
because that would have a huge effect, but it's the reality.

But "not using Facebook" is different than choosing to move out of a city or
not having a car or other life altering decisions. It's just a communication
tool. We have so many.

So I have currently zero empathy for the "victims" of this leak. Quite the
contrary, I feel a little angry. Because I have to leave in a world that could
be much more beautiful if only people, sometimes, just sometimes, though about
the consequences of their life instead of just going with the motion. And this
affects much more than privacy. And it's unfair.

~~~
aninhumer
>So I have currently zero empathy for the "victims" of this leak. Quite the
contrary, I feel a little angry. Because I have to leave in a world that could
be much more beautiful if only people, sometimes, just sometimes, though about
the consequences of their life instead of just going with the motion. And this
affects much more than privacy. And it's unfair.

And the very fact that you insist on blaming the individuals for a collective
problem is why problems like this are so hard to solve.

If so many people don't care about this issue, despite its importance, maybe
you should stop blaming them and expecting them to magically start caring, and
start thinking about how our society leads them to believe it's not an issue?

~~~
throwaway413
Chalking everything up to “society” is a great way to never get anything
solved.

Change starts with oneself. Connecting on an individual level, making changes
on an individual level, understanding and valuing even minute consequences on
the individual level - that’s what going to bring about permanent change. Not
more groupthink.

We have brains and decision-making abilities for a reason. Yes, I understand
society has a very influential role in how we go about our lives. But that is
not some catch-all excuse for not taking any responsibility for our individual
behaviors. There are two sides to the coin that both need to be addressed.

~~~
aninhumer
So how do you suggest we solve the problem without collective actions? What
"changes on an individual level" do you think need to occur, and how do you
expect them to come about?

Because to me, it seems like the individualist's prescription is just to judge
people for making bad choices and hope they make better ones in future.

~~~
mygo
The individual is the functional unit of society.

When you choose to address society, what you’re really doing, if it’s going to
work, is addressing the individuals of that society.

Address a bunch of individuals. Or address one individual and have him address
2 people he knows. Etc. More than one way to skin a cat...

TLDR; to skin a society of cats, one way or another, each individual cat needs
to get skinned.

~~~
aninhumer
Saying "society is just individuals" is reductive to the point of uselessness
though. People exist within a system of social and economic realities, and the
choices they make, indeed the choices they _can_ make, are shaped by that
system.

And therefore, many choices which would improve society only make sense as
_collective_ choices. An individual deciding whether to delete their facebook
account is deciding between privacy violation or social isolation. In that
context, the privacy violation might _actually_ be the better choice for the
individual.

When people criticise that choice, they're noticing that _collectively_ it
would be better if everyone made a different choice. But it's pointless to
blame individuals for not making a collective choice. If we actually want
people to make that choice, we need to act collectively, and transition away
from facebook in a coordinated way.

~~~
mygo
???

Re-read what I wrote, and then name something I wrote that goes against what
you have said about collective action and coordination.

For starters, I did not say “society is just individuals.” I said that the
individual is the functional unit of society. When you want society to act on
something, what you’re really saying is that you want individuals of a group
to act on that, collectively.

When you command an army you’re effectively commanding each individual
soldier.. as the soldier is the functional unit of the army. When you want the
army to move from one side of the valley to the other, what that translates to
is for each individual soldier to move from one side of the valley to the
other.

If someone is petitioning for social change and fails to lead individuals -
the functional units - to change, then there’s not much happening at all
besides someone blowing hot air at “society”

------
notacoward
Yes, the hearing was a sham, but not quite in the way the OP thinks. To quote
Hannibal Lecter, in turn quoting Marcus Aurelius:

> Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What
> does he do, this man you seek?

What do senators do? Primarily, they get themselves elected. They see that
Facebook might have a role in that. They're trying to figure out if it can
help them, or help their opponents, or if they can turn it from one to the
other. Secondarily, while there's so much negative sentiment about Facebook
(I'll write about journalists' role and agenda in fanning those flames another
time), they want to be _seen_ as asking hard questions. They don't want to
_be_ asking hard questions until they know where the advantage to themselves
might be, but they want to _seem_ that way. Anything else is just window
dressing.

------
kristianc
Of course it was a sham. No one's interests are aligned to getting this
solved.

Facebook want to get away with as minimal regulation as possible, and any
regulation that does happen it wants to harm its incumbents.

Politicians want to get re-elected, and want regulation in so far as it harms
the chances of anyone 'doing a Trump' and using social media to unseat their
own Congressional seat. They're not that exercised about privacy otherwise
they wouldn't have spent the last year arguing for a right to hack people's
phones.

Users want to make the right noises / virtue signals to their friends about
privacy but ultimately don't want to pay for Facebook.

'Researchers' want to make a name for themselves off the back of this issue
and appear on TV but Oh My God don't ask me any questions about how this
actually works or what an alternative looks like.

The media and publishers want the exposure and ad revenue that comes from
running this story, but want to avoid anyone asking any difficult questions
about them signing over their involvement in FB schemes such as Instant
Articles or how they track their own users.

The process worked exactly as designed - it allowed everyone to have their
pound of flesh while ensuring nothing actually gets done.

~~~
twostoned
Best summary that I've seen thus far.

------
cconcepts
It does sound like it was a sham. However, what is really going to make a
difference now that Facebook has critical mass is people voting with their
feet. This doesn't just mean attempting to remove yourself from their system
but also communicating broadly how the system actually works. Most of my non-
tech friends still just see it as a way to keep up to date on what is
happening in the world.

Babylonbee seem to be doing a good job of spreading FBs transgressions via
satire: [http://babylonbee.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-promises-to-do-
be...](http://babylonbee.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-promises-to-do-better-at-
hiding-facebooks-data-mining-activities/)

------
zippy786
Q. Can the users completely delete their data ?

Zuckerberg: Yes, there are two options. First to deactivate because students
and want to suspend and come back because they want to study for exam. Second
option is users can totally delete all their data.

Where is the second option anyone from Facebook ? There is only an option to
delete the account after you DIE, not an option to delete it when you are
alive.

So many lies.

~~~
oneplusone
Easy to google:
[https://www.facebook.com/help/delete_account](https://www.facebook.com/help/delete_account)

~~~
zippy786
Thanks. But I could not find the link anywhere, can anyone even get here from
Facebook page: [https://imgur.com/1ijzgqV](https://imgur.com/1ijzgqV)

~~~
eilyra
From what I remember, you need to click "Learn more" in the "Deactivate your
account" text which will take you to a help page that allows the deletion of
the account as well. But yes, it is very much hidden and not meant to be
found.

------
ftlio
It was fun to watch Congress pretend like there's something to legislate here,
and to watch Zuckerberg pretend like whatever legislation Facebook helps write
might be a burden.

The openness to the idea of AI modulating discourse so that we don't ever have
to feel uncomfortable was my favorite part.

------
Simulacra
It was painful to watch. From Zuck's smug, condescension, to the Senators
grappling with how to ask the softest question while still looking tough.

------
AnnoyingSwede
I find it ridiculous that a company that runs a web-community should be held
accountable for what it's users do, while weapons manufacturers are not. Why
not just hold the people that breached their terms and conditions responsible
like we do with guns?

------
jonbarker
Why was there no discussion about the price discrimination which occurred in
the last election, and to be fair, probably also happened in previous
elections? No other media company is allowed to do this. Does the Honest Ads
bill even address this?

------
Nikita_Sadkov
Facebook Bans for Anti-Putin Poetry on Your Wall

After the ban they also enabled forced pre-moderation on all my wall posts
(everything I post to my wall gets marked with "We removed this post because
it looks like spam and doesn't follow our"), so now I cant post anything at
all. Do we need more proofs that Zuckerberg is a Putin's friend? Hello,
Facebook! I'm a citizen of Russia who is just being critical of Russia and
Putin. How much Russia pays Zuckerberg to censor dissent opinion and promote
Russian puppets, like Donald Trump?

------
msie
Ted Cruz scored a lot of points from conservatives on Twitter but he was a
client of Cambridge Analytica!

------
bArray
It seems as though everybody in the room has a very different agenda and even
more different level of education on the subject. Some seem to be using it to
grill Zuckerberg, some to setup discussion and some to air dirty laundry. It's
a bit of a circus in there.

Current hearing live on Youtube:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16812334](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16812334)

------
avoutthere
The author used the term "monopoly" six times in the article. Facebook is a
lot of ugly things, but "monopoly" is not one of them.

------
ada1981
Play along @

Zuckerberg Senate Bingo: [http://mfbc.us/m/nk7mja](http://mfbc.us/m/nk7mja)

------
rajacombinator
The idea that a senate hearing could be anything but a sham is rather
innovative. Are the authors naive, stupid, or evil?

------
throwaway413
Damn social logins. The biggest one is Spotify. They require you to make a
whole new account instead of just unlinking your FB one, and then all of your
playlists etc are gone.

I’m going to set aside a day to migrate all of my services, but it’s going to
be a pain. Worth it.

~~~
wvenable
I made the smart choice a long time ago to never use one of those social
logins. It actually kept me off of Stackoverflow for a long time. I'm not even
particularly socially minded or privacy conscious -- I just don't think one
coordinated login is a good idea.

~~~
throwaway413
Smart choice, wish I didn’t make that mistake.

------
thret
"the senators elevated him to a kind of co-equal philosopher king whose view
on Facebook regulation carried special weight. It shouldn’t."

Why not though? I assume he holds more sway than any senator of any country.

~~~
bonestamp2
True, although the senators are there to protect the people and they can't
protect the people from someone if they take advice from that person.

------
mtgx
You're not going to get the "real deal" with the next hearing. If anything,
they're going to take it easy on Facebook.

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/04/face...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/04/facebook-
gave-most-contributions-house-committee-question-zuckerberg-also-got-most-
contributions-fac/486313002/)

~~~
bonestamp2
Not to mention, Zuck had a private meeting with lawmakers on Monday. I wonder
what they talked about then. I assume at a minimum they reminded him that he
can't talk about any government spying that facebook assists with.

------
exodust
Just watching this now on youtube, and surprised to hear Zuckerberg say he
isn't aware of the term "shadow profile", even though he confirmed in the
previous sentence that they collect data on people without Facebook accounts.
Very odd denial of a term he is surely familiar with.

------
Chardok
If you have any doubts that this wasn't a sham just look at how well FB stock
did yesterday.

------
arbuge
If greater regulation in the social network space comes along, it's probably a
win for Facebook. They have the resources to implement compliance. One more
barrier to entry for any aspiring competitors, as if any more were needed.

------
itakedrugs
What's all those lobbyist doing? I thought that they were supposed to advise
them in a way that would be beneficial to the citizens?

------
garettmd
I haven't seen many Congressional hearings but what I have seen is always a
sham. Are these things ever more than just for show?

------
clon
Listening in I could not help but see parallels from Monty Python's Bridge of
Death sketch.

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cV0tCphFMr8](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cV0tCphFMr8)

Especially with the follow up question..

------
ijafri
i guess it's about time, all state level elected bodies, should dedicate 5-10%
seats ... at least ... on an extremely specialised profession basis, such as
software, medical etc ... look most of these guys are lawyers by profession
that's massively over represented in all houses everywhere .... why just we
can't ....

~~~
Hasknewbie
This is a flawed view based on the premise that elected officials would
somehow be incapable of grasping the concept of "having special advisers". You
might be interested to know that Hong Kong has a system similar to what you're
describing. It's not working out to well (hint: one's expertise is useful only
in narrow cases, while corporatist self-interest applies all the time).

------
wiz21c
FB is now too big to fail.

------
usernum3hundred
Cambridge Analytica was probably a "Pearl Harbor" moment for the US
government, they probably wanted to put regulations on Facebook for a long
time.

~~~
DiffEq
Yet it is not new and how is it different than when Obama did it?

[https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-
data-...](https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scandal-
trump-election-obama-2012/)

------
Dowwie
I have had enough of the latest anti-Facebook vitriole. A lot of people want
to see someone, preferably Zuck, drawn and quartered, but I don't. He has
accepted responsibility for mistakes and has agreed to do more to protect its
users. I believe him. I also believe he has earned a chance to redeem himself,
considering the value that Facebook has created for society at little to no
cost to its users.

Most of the Hacker News community has benefitted by Facebook, as users or
through myriad successful open source projects. To take with both hands and to
bite is unethical. It is wrong.

Facebook and Zuck aren't the only people who need to change.

~~~
pi-squared
How do I downvote?

~~~
newscracker
You need to have more karma points on your profile. The downvote privilege has
been at around 500 karma points (for a long time). That point is only the
threshold, and the privilege is granted after going above that threshold. But
it supposedly increases over time. The Unofficial Hacker News FAQ [1] has a
lot more information.

[1]: [https://www.jacquesmattheij.com/the-unofficial-hn-
faq](https://www.jacquesmattheij.com/the-unofficial-hn-faq)

