Mark has transcended from hacker-programmer to entrepreneur and ultimately CEO of one of the world's largest, most successful tech-media companies. He's done so before turning 40 years old. The world is watching him testify for days on end with the most highly elected lawyer-politicians who don't understand his business, technology, nor policies. He's responding to aggressive lines of questioning to the best of his ability, with integrity, and yet in a way to protect his best interests. That is no simple feat.
Mark is showing the world that he's earned his position and is a real leader. His actions while testifying are commendable.
Those who continue to grind their axes will be left with nothing but a worn handle soon while Facebook and its social media empire will continue on, but hopefully changed for the better for society.
While this was back ages ago, Zuckerberg used failed logins from Facebook to hack into a reporter’s email. Yes, Facebook captured plaintext passwords of failed logins, and Zuckerberg personally used them to hack a reporter’s email account who was digging into FB.
The problem isn’t scaling pains as you try to wrap. The problem IS Facebook, and almost everything about it.
Examples: Pledge 99% (for-profit, tax structuring), Internet.org (locking in of Facebook; closed intranet as ‘internet’); anticompetitive actions against Snapchat through copying of stories; and the 999+ privacy scandals that have continuously plagued Facebook because it is the core business model.
For you to call Zuckerberg commendable, is almost an insult for every founder with a moral compass.
He is certainly competent, but “commendable” is the exact antonym of what I’d use to describe him.
To answer the original question, he's lying.
Which is 100% consistent with the career path described in glowing terms. In today's web which is in SaaS social media at minimum, is in the business of surveillance. Lying about that is axiomatic.
I can't really agree here. To believe that _you_ have the right to delete things, but the unwashed laity that use your network do not, represents a complete lack of integrity. Believing that _you_ should be allowed to own all the property around you, so that you can have a sense of privacy, and accept that your company wants to lobby for the use of private medical records to build better profiles on your users... that's disgusting.
But I agree that all of this outrage will amount to nothing. I deleted my account in early 2017, but I know my data still resides on their servers, and is used to some sort of advantage. It's easier to leave the mafia....
Yet I still think the company evolved much faster than he did, and he's getting overwhelmed in a position he's no longer fit for.
He is lying because he is a competent ceo. He has objectives in an hostile environnement for his business but knows it will pass and that as long as he holds, people will move and forget.
Lying is necessary if you want to keep doing something for your benefit that people would think you should not.
He wasn't likely lying as he was under oath, and his very competent lawyers would've advised him strongly against perjury.
He's obviously neither incompetent nor inept. He successfully navigated a Congressional sideshow and delivered the expectation that shareholders had, much to the chagrin of end users.
The only ones lying, incompetent and inept are us - those who continue to use Facebook fully knowing next to nothing has changed from the hearing. If you haven't already deleted Facebook, think hard
AFAIK he was not under oath, but even if he was, that's quite a naive statement. Many statements given to congress under oath are provably lies, and are never pursued.
The hearing was scheduled for one day, with hardly any time for any follow up to any question or any real debate. It was for show, not for discovering the truth -- and given that (and that it was known in advance), I suspect even if he did perjure himself under oath, nothing would have become of it.
Zuckerberg stated that they delete all of the data after user deletes their account (not deactivate).
"My team will get back to you on that" can be replaced with "I'll tell you, but not live" because he knows social media will be burning like magnesium before he's even done with the next question
2. Armchair developers always throw out things like this: "A few if-else statements would remove most of them and would provide at least a temporary solution.". Sure, you could do a keyword search for "pills" and delete all of those ads. How many legitimate ads will you take down in the process? How many extra support requests will they have to deal with because of the change? How long until the spammers change the wording ever so slightly to defeat Facebook s naive workaround?
3. Facebook doesn't directly give data to advertisers, that's what Zuckerberg was saying, and OP acknowledges as much. The fact that advertisers can infer data about users by using the system is a feature, not a bug. The very fact that you can do targeted advertising is of course going to leak some data about users to advertisers, it's not Zuckerberg's job to explicitly state that.
Still biased of them of course.