Senate Embarrasses Themselves In Facebook Hearing

Senate Embarrasses Themselves In Facebook Hearing


DURING
MARK ZUCKERBERG’S TESTIMONY YESTERDAY THERE WERE A NUMBER OF
INSTANCES WHERE AND VOTE IN FAVOR OF DEMONSTRATED THEY
DIDN’T REALLY KNOW HOW THE PLATFORM WORKED OR HOW OUR DATA
IS BEING USED IN THE FIRST PLACE. THINK PROGRESS PUT TOGETHER
THESE MONTAGE VIDEOS TO SHOW SOME OF THE MORE RIDICULOUS
QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED. TAKE
A LOOK.>>SEN. WE RUN ADS.>>I SEE.>>THERE ARE DAYS WHEN I WONDER
IF FACEBOOK FRIENDS IS A LITTLE MISSTATED. DOESN’T SEEM LIKE I HAVE THOSE
EVERY SINGLE DAY.>>HOW MANY DATA CATEGORIES
DO YOU STORE?>>CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEAN?>>HOW MANY DOES FACEBOOK STORE
OUT OF? DO YOU STORE ANY?>>SEN., I’M NOT ALSO SURE
WHAT THAT IS REFERRING TO?>>MY SON CHARLIE WHO IS 13 WHO
IS DEDICATED TO INSTAGRAM SO HE WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE I
MENTIONED HIM WHILE I WAS WITH YOU.>>EMAILING WITHIN WHATSAPP DOES
NOT EVER INFORM YOUR ADVERTISERS?>>NO. WE DON’T SEE ANY OF THE CONTENT
ON WHATSAPP, IT IS FULLY ENCRYPTED.>>LET’S SAY I’M
EMAILING ABOUT BLACK PANTHER. DO I GET A BLACK PANTHER
BANNER AD?>>SEN., FACEBOOK’S SYSTEMS DO
NOT SEE THE CONTENT OF MESSAGES BEING TRANSFERRED
OVER WHATSAPP.>>BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT
I’M ASKING. I’M ASKING ABOUT WHETHER THESE
SYSTEMS TALK TO EACH OTHER WITHOUT A HUMAN BEING
TOUCHING IT?>>THAT WAS I GUESS SOMEWHAT
ENTERTAINING BUT ALSO VERY DEPRESSING. I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE MOST
DEPRESSING EXCHANGE CAME FROM SEN. JOHN KENNEDY OF LOUISIANA. THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING WAS
AMAZING BECAUSE HE JUST KEPT ASKING THE SAME QUESTION OVER
AND OVER AGAIN AND GETTING THE SAME ANSWER. TAKE A LOOK.>>ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE ME
MORE CONTROL OVER MY DATA?>>SEN., AS SOMEONE WHO USES
FACEBOOK I BELIEVE YOU SHOULD HAVE COMPLETE
CONTROL OVER YOUR DATA.>>ARE YOU WILLING TO GO BACK AND
WORK ON GIVING ME A GREATER RIGHT TO ERASE MY DATA?>>SEN. YOU CAN ALREADY DELETE
ANY OF THE DATA THAT IS THERE OR DELETE OUT OF YOUR DATA?>>WORK ON EXPANDING THAT?>>SEN. I THINK WE ALREADY DO
WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO BUT CERTAINLY WE ARE ALWAYS WORKING
ON TRYING TO MAKE THESE CONTROLS EASIER.>>ARE YOU WILLING TO EXPAND MY
RIGHT TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE SHARING MY DATA WITH?>>SEN., WE ALREADY GIVE YOU A
LIST OF APPS THAT YOU ARE USING AND YOU SIGNED INTO THOSE
YOURSELF AND PROVIDED AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT AS I HAVE
SAID BEFORE WE DON’T SHARE ANY DATA ñ>>ARE YOU WILLING TO EXPAND MY
RIGHT TO PROHIBIT YOU FROM SHARING MY DATA?>>SEN., AGAIN I BELIEVE THAT YOU
ALREADY HAVE THAT CONTROL. I THINK PEOPLE HAVE THAT FULL
CONTROL IN THE SYSTEM ALREADY TODAY. IF WE ARE NOT COMMUNICATING THIS
CLEARLY THEN THAT IS A BIG THING WE SHOULD WORK ON AS I THINK THE
PRINCIPLES THAT YOU ARE ARTICULATING ARE THE ONES THAT
WE BELIEVE IN AND TRY TO CODIFY IN THE PRODUCT WE BUILD.>>ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE ME THE
RIGHT TO TAKE MY DATA ON FACEBOOK AND MOVE IT TO ANOTHER
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM?>>SEN., YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT. WE HAVE A DOWNLOAD YOUR
INFORMATION TOOL WHERE YOU CAN GO GET A FILE OF ALL THE CONTENT
THERE AND DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT.>>CENK, JUMP IN.>>IN THIS CASE THERE’S
A COUPLE THINGS HERE. I DON’T THINK THE QUESTIONS WERE
NECESSARILY THAT IGNORANT AND I THINK ñ HE IS BASICALLY THE
POINT THAT HATCH WAS TRYING TO MAKE WAS PEOPLE KNOW THAT THIS
IS NOT A SERVICE YOU PAY FOR SO YOU RUN ADS AND IN ORDER TO RUN
ADS YOU COLLECT PEOPLE’S DATA. IT WAS A SOFTBALL QUESTION
RATHER THAN AN IGNORANT QUESTION. THE ONE THAT WAS REALLY DIDN’T
MAKE SENSE WAS THE ONE ASKING ABOUT DATA CATEGORIES. BUT IS NOT A THING. WHAT KENNEDY WAS TRYING TO DO
BUT DID A VERY POOR JOB OF AND HE SHOULD BE MATT AND HIS STAFF
ARE NOT PREPARING HIM BETTER IS HE IS SAYING CAN I GET MY DATA
OUT? YES, YOU CAN DELETE IT IF YOU WANT OR MOVE IT, BUT THAT IS
A SYSTEM THEY HAVE NOW. YOU CAN OPT OUT. YOU CAN SAY NOT ONLY CAN YOU
TAKE YOUR DATE OUT, YOU CAN SAY YOU CANNOT USE MY DATA. BUT WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE ASKED IS
WILL BE MOVED TO AN OPT IN SYSTEM WHERE IT IS ASSUMED THAT
YOU WILL NOT GET MY DATA. ONLY IF I AFFIRMATIVELY TELL YOU
THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED THEN YOU CAN HAVE IT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF
SHARING IT WITH ADVERTISERS ETC. THAT IS A REALLY HARD QUESTION
AND ZUCKERBERG HAD TO BE ENORMOUSLY RELIEVED THAT HE
DIDN’T GET THAT QUESTION AND THAT KENNEDY BOTCHED IT. ONE MORE DEFENSE OF THESE
SENATORS THAT I NORMALLY DISAGREE WITH. FACEBOOK IS NOT THAT INTUITIVE. IF YOU ARE AN OLD SENATOR AND
YOU GO ON THEIR, BETWEEN THE WALLS AND THE POSTS AND THE
FRIENDS AND THE LIKES, AND THIS AND THAT, YOU REALLY HAVE TO GET
READ INTO THAT BY YOUR STAFF TO BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND IT. THESE FOLKS ARE 60 OR 70 YEARS
OLD.>>DON’T CARE. THEY ARE LAWMAKERS AND ARE
SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO KNOW HOW
OUR DATA IS BEING MISUSED AND HOW HER
PRIVACY IS BEING VIOLATED. THESE ARE THINGS THAT SHOULD BE
EDUCATED ABOUT BECAUSE IT IS LITERALLY THEIR JOB TO DO IT. I DON’T KNOW WHY YOUR PERCEPTION
IS THAT KENNEDY HAD A SMART QUESTION IN MIND BUT DIDN’T KNOW
HOW TO ARTICULATE IT. I WATCH THE ENTIRE EXCHANGE AND
IT WAS ONE INCREDIBLY IGNORANT QUESTION AFTER THE OTHER. I DIDN’T HAVE TIME TO WATCH THE
FULL FIVE HOURS HEARING BUT I WATCHED THE MAJORITY OF IT
TUTORIAL SESSION BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T DO THEIR HOMEWORK. MY PROBLEM WITH LAWMAKERS IN
GENERAL RIGHT NOW IS THEY DON’T DO THEIR HOMEWORK. THEY DON’T READ THE BILLS
THEY SIGN. BOB CORKER WHINING AND CRYING
ABOUT HOW HE VOTED IN FAVOR OF TAX LEGISLATION AND HE DIDN’T
KNOW WHAT WAS IN IT IS ON YOU HOMEBOY. THAT IS YOUR FAULT. I AM NOT GIVING THEM
CREDIT OR A PASS. THEY ARE SO INCREDIBLY
INCOMPETENT INSTEAD OF SPENDING ALL THEIR TIME FUNDRAISING, HOW
ABOUT THEY EDUCATE THEMSELVES ON THE VERY ISSUE
THEY ARE CALLING A HEARING FOR?>>ON THAT ISSUE SOME PEOPLE ARE
SAYING THAT MAYBE THE SENATORS, THE HOUSE WAS TOUGHER ON
ZUCKERBERG, THE SENATORS WERE EASIER ON HIM. I ACTUALLY THINK
THAT IS WHY THE HOUSE WAS TOUGH ON THEM. EVEN HARRISON BOOKER, THE AMOUNT
OF MONEY THEY TOOK FROM FACEBOOK IS MORE THAN THE REST OF THE
SENATORS BUT IT IS STILL A REALLY SMALL AMOUNT. FACEBOOK IS WORTH 400 BILLION. SPENDING OVER 7 MILLION IN SIX
YEARS IS ALMOST NOTHING. WHAT FACEBOOK DID WAS THEY LEFT
THEMSELVES VULNERABLE TO POLITICIANS. GOOGLE ON THE OTHER HAND, I LOVE
THEM THEY ARE A HUGE PARTNER OF OURS. THEY SPEND A LOT OF MONEY
LOBBYING, THAT IS SMART. IT IS NOT MY BUSINESS, IT IS
THEIR BUSINESS TO THEY GIVE MONEY TO. BUT IF YOU ARE ASKING ME
IF IT IS POLITICALLY SAVVY? YES. FACEBOOK I GUARANTEE YOU WILL
NOW CRANK UP THEIR SPENDING AND PUT MONEY INTO POLITICS BECAUSE
OTHERWISE YOU ARE GOING TO GET GRILLED. EVEN IF THEY BOTCH IT AT THE
SENATE LEVEL, AT THE HOUSE THEY WERE WAY TOUGHER. MY FINAL POLITICAL POINT IS
LINDSEY GRAHAM TELLING YOU ABOUT IT TURNS OUT VOLUNTARY ñ
DIDN’T WORK. YOU DON’T SAY? I WILL GIVE YOU
CREDIT FOR POINTING THAT OUT BUT HOW ABOUT THE REST OF YOUR
CAREER? WHERE YOU GUYS PRETENDED THAT DEREGULATING EVERYTHING
WOULD MAKE SENSE. NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU GUYS GET
MORE MONEY FROM THE TELE-COPS WHICH ARE OPPOSED TO FACEBOOK,
YOU CAN ATTEND MONEY FROM THE AT&T’S, THE COMCAST, AND THE
VERIZON’S AND NOT MUCH MONEY FROM FACEBOOK AND ALL OF A
SUDDEN YOU ARE SUPER TOUGH ON FACEBOOK AND THINK YOU SHOULD DO
MORE REGULATION AND THAT VOLUNTARY REGULATION ISN’T
WORKING OUT. WHAT A FUNNY COINCIDENCE.>>WE ALSO KNOW THAT LAWMAKERS
WHO ARE TRADITIONALLY KNOWN AS ANTI-REGULATION LOVE REGULATION
WHEN IT BENEFITS THEM AND THEIR SELF INTEREST. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE LAWMAKERS THAT
ARE CONVINCED THERE IS SOME SORT OF MEMBERSHIP EFFORT
GEARED TOWARD CONSERVATIVES. IT IS THEIR SELF
INTEREST IN ORDER TO DO SO. WHEN IT COMES TO PROTECTING
CONSUMERS THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT REGULATION. WHEN IT COMES TO PROTECTING WHAT
THEY WANT, OF COURSE THEY WANT REGULATION.

37 comments

  1. damn. i don't blame this old dudes for not knowing the internet and how applications and websites work, i mean a lot of this old granpas and grandmas dont like tech that much… but they should have turned to their staff or whoever person that can enlighten them before they called Zuckerberg in, i mean they should have the resources to atleast get some critical information and intelligent questions. they literally shamed themselves. but ya know we all have weaknesses and we can't know it all. Mark knows he shows data of fb users to their partners which i don't know why. just don't exposed too much of yourself online.

  2. I agree that the senators made themselves look stupid and most of them shouldn’t be in charge… But common, that girl yelling at the camera is super annoying and obnoxious

  3. Um louco de ter feito acordos com o corruptos governo brasileiro. Comigo Marco Antônio Reis Júnior já aos fez acordos ou entrou em contato. Usaram meus dados pessoais conscientemente e teve encontros com governantes do Brasil. Orquestrado e planejado tudo que fizeram. E estas vagabundas estão deitando e rolando com as falcatruas. Até casamento coletivo com pensão tem. Um leque de crimes inenarrável. Ass: Marco Antônio Reis Júnior SNI / ABIN Brasil inteligence.

  4. 5g prevents exfoliations of radiation byvrefuseing to allow cool down s 12. 5G Danger: Re-Radiation Inside the Body

    Way back in 2002, RF researcher Arthur Firstenberg published an analysis of 5G long before the technology was approved. He explained how, due to 5G EM pulses being extremely short and delivered in bursts, they actually replicateinside the body – and end up creating tiny new 5G antennas internally. Firstenberg wrote:

    “… when extremely short electromagnetic pulses enter the body, something else happens: the moving charges themselves become little antennas that re-radiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the body …”

    “These re-radiated waves are called Brillouin precursors … They become significant when either the power or the phase of the wave changes rapidly enough … This means that the reassurance we are being given – that these millimeter waves are too short to penetrate far into the body – is not true.”

    This echoes a previous point made – that 5G penetration is a serious danger.

  5. You're wrong, Ana. I work in IT and Kennedy's questions were NOT ignorant. They may have been asked in the wrong way, but the questions themselves go straight to the HEART of the Privacy Concerns in this country. Cenk had the right of it. Instead of asking Opt out questions, the Senator should have asked Opt In questions. Zuckerburg was dancing around Kennedy's questions as it was but if Kennedy had asked the Opt IN question, then Zuckerberg would have done a SERIOUS tap dance.

  6. Yeah – clearly shows the lawmakers are not prepared and fully understand how Facebook works. Most of the questions are not relevant to data privacy and confidentiality

  7. "How many data categories do you store? Does facebook stores?"
    If you're asking if facebook store data then yes, it's stored on something called a SERVER. If they don't store data, then we would have a new account everytime we visit FB, because the data is gone everytime we log out.

  8. He should have just asked her how her apple watch works and if she is aware of the fact that her data like location and steps and heartbeat is collected and transmitted to other services?

  9. It's all sarcasm but old people should just move on their lives and do something else. Let the new generation start the future again!!

  10. for fuke sake – – – every person in the Senate have a staff – taking care of which question they will ask Mark Z – – the Senate people them self dont know shit… You The Young Turks should know taht

  11. if there age is an issue in understanding current technology and how the world works, get them out of office. oh and if you put information on the internet, any information even fb msg emails anything, its putting it out there to be stolen, if you dont want it stolen dont put it on the internet. this is not new, we knew this 20 years ago lol.

  12. Hell yeah! This chick should take over those incompetent old farts jobs! Bet she does the homework! And the homeboy comment….. I’m dying!🤣👍🏼

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *