
Make Mark Zuckerberg Testify - snake117
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/11/make-mark-zuckerberg-testify/
======
mankash666
What exactly is the crime that Facebook committed? Why should Zuck testify?

Sensationalist BS

~~~
uabstraction
Oh please. Social media was exploited and abused like never before during this
election cycle. All the major social networks have become a breeding ground
for extremism, geopolitical propaganda, and misinformation. The public has
every right to know what role the operators of these platforms served, and
what actions - if any - they took. How much did they know about it and when?
Did they fight to maintain the integrity of their networks or were they
complicit? Or did they simply turn a blind eye to protect their inflated user
numbers and rip off the advertisers who use their platforms?

Nobody is accusing Zuckerburg of a crime, but his company has hardly been
transparent or forthcoming about this either. The public deserves an
explanation, not only from him, but the folks at Twitter and Reddit as well.

~~~
mankash666
Where is the public deriving it's said entitlement from? Morals? Ethics? or
laws?

There's no legal obligation on FB to shed light on anything that's completely
legal. I'm assuming you're citing ethics. If FB is capable of making YOU the
product, you think they care about how their advertising dollars come? As long
as they're legal

~~~
uoaei
Yes, because nothing bad has ever happened from following the codes laid out
by your friendly neighboorhood government.

------
dogma1138
The US funds political activism in countries including western allies
constantly and does much worse in less friendly regimes.

Russia interfering with US elections is a problem for the US but it's a given
fact since the dawn of diplomacy and geopolitics.

21 years ago this was on the cover of Time:
[http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html](http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html)

Now everyone is mad because Trump doesn't seem to fit the general agenda of
the centrist and left leaning media.

I don't like Trump either but bitching about Russia is hypercritical and also
pointless.

If the climate wasn't right Russia wouldn't been able to get Trump 1000 extra
votes. Maybe we should look to how we got to a place where polarizing populist
candidates without even the slightest shred of credibility are electable in
the first place.

------
Jeremy1026
Well, testifying would put a big hitch in his political career I bet.

~~~
dickbasedregex
Good! Can we not have a near perfect crop of complete losers next time? No one
wants Zuck anymore than Hillary. Seems like a good way to lock in 4 more years
of regret.

~~~
sokoloff
/me raises hand that I'd rather have Mark than Hillary. It's not so much that
I agree with everything he says or stands for and I most certainly appreciate
but don't idolize him. I'd rather have nearly any tech-savvy outsider than at
least half the major party primary candidates last year.

~~~
idle_processor
I'd prefer someone less complicit in establishing the surveillance state.

~~~
sokoloff
Less complicit than Mark is what I assume you mean, though it was ambiguous in
my mind whether you meant "than either of those two".

------
Overtonwindow
The United States has been disrupting, corrupting, and in some cases,
overthrowing elections for decades. Now all of a sudden another country as the
audacity to screw with our elections and suddenly everyone is shocked! So much
hypocrisy. If you want to really see how an election can be corrupted, and
thrown, just wait to Zuckerberg runs for President.

------
spaceflunky
It's funny how $100k of pro-Trump facebook ads by a foreign entity is a crime
against humanity.

But like Obama actively campaigning for politicians in other countries [0] or
the US getting involved in god knows how many other elections is like
totally... meh.

[0] [http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-
foreign-...](http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-
elections-20161213-story.html)

~~~
justboxing
> But like Obama actively campaigning for politicians in other countries

The source you quoted shows nothing about 'Obama actively campaigning for
politicians in other countries'. In fact it exonerates him of your charges.

The most recent US interference in a foreign election (quoted in your source)
was in 2000, when Dubya was President. You could arguable attribute that to
Bill Clinton, since the groundwork would have to have been laid earlier than
2000.

> In 2000, the U.S. spent millions of dollars in aid for political parties,
> campaign costs and independent media. Funding and broadcast equipment
> provided to the media arms of the opposition were a decisive factor in
> electing opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica as Yugoslav president,
> according to Levin. “If it wouldn’t have been for overt intervention …
> Milosevic would have been very likely to have won another term,” he said.

Obama would come to power a full 2 terms later.

~~~
spaceflunky
Here are six examples of Obama outwardly interfering in foreign elections.

[https://spectator.org/obamas-meddling-in-foreign-
elections-s...](https://spectator.org/obamas-meddling-in-foreign-elections-
six-examples/)

~~~
tim333
Politifact debunks example #1. Can't be bothered to research the others but
I'm skeptical [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/statements/2008/aug/...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/statements/2008/aug/20/jerome-corsi/obama-did-not-take-sides-in-kenya/)

~~~
spaceflunky
Yeah because Politifact is a totally unbiased trustworthy source....

~~~
cholantesh
All sources have some level of bias. can you demonstrate that Politifact's
bias compromises them in this context?

