Congress vs. Facebook

[lpetrich]

Facebook's sins haunt Mark Zuckerberg at Libra congressional hearing

“As I have examined Facebook’s various problems, I have come to the conclusion that it would be beneficial for all if Facebook concentrates on addressing as many existing deficiencies and failures before proceeding any further on the Libra project,” said House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Rep. Maxine Waters in kicking off the hearing on Wednesday.

WATCH: Facebook CEO Mark Zukerberg Testifies Before Congress on Libra

Marcus Gilmer on Twitter: "Rep. Maxine Waters is reading Zuck the riot act over Facebook's failures right now." / Twitter
noting
Marcus Gilmer on Twitter: "As Rep. Maxine Waters goes IN on Facebook, Zuckerberg looks THRILLED to be there https://t.co/kzhC2UyyCT" / Twitter

Marcus Gilmer on Twitter: "Love Zuckerberg’s when McHenry brings up “horseless carriages” https://t.co/1ztXvV1uDN" / Twitter
Marcus Gilmer on Twitter: "Waters goes one-on-one with Zuckerberg over fact-checking political ads https://t.co/xR6FMLkYyI" / Twitter

Marcus Gilmer on Twitter: "Keep in mind, this hearing is about Facebook's proposed cryptocurrency Libra. The committee is asking about Libra but through a lens of all of Facebook's past sins" / Twitter

Marcus Gilmer on Twitter: "Posey is literally pushing the question "DO YOU THINK VACCINES ARE HARMFUL" to Zuckerberg" / Twitter
noting
Marcus Gilmer on Twitter: "Here’s part of the ridiculous anti-vaxxer exchange and Zuckerberg gently rebuffing https://t.co/DOZA3621tb" / Twitter

Marcus Gilmer on Twitter: "The most blistering 2 minutes from today’s Facebook hearing (supposedly about Libra) is Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH) absolutions lighting in to Zuckerberg (and Sheryl Sandberg) about civil rights https://t.co/4cd28Tyg2O" / Twitter

Marcus Gilmer on Twitter: "Rep. Tlaib blasts Zuckerberg on allowing politicians to violate community guidelines and the real world violence it inspires https://t.co/LKPg3IvdnZ" / Twitter

Marcus Gilmer on Twitter: "Come for Rep. Sherman putting Zuckerberg on blast, stay for Zuckerberg’s WTF look at the end https://t.co/nbnyLsD3hm" / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

Pete Schroeder on Twitter: "AOC kind of tying Zuckerberg in knots here on political ads.
Q: Can I run ads telling voters the wrong election date?
Z: No.
Q: So you are fact-checking politics ads?
Z: For specific things.
Q: Can I run ads in GOP primaries saying they backed my Green New Deal?
Z: I don't know." / Twitter

Pete Schroeder on Twitter: "Zuckerberg: "I think lying is bad, and I think running an ad that would be a lie would be bad."
But says that's a separate matter from whether FB should regulate political speech." / Twitter

Harry Parker on Twitter: "@peteschroeder I am shocked at his lack of preparation for these questions. His staff has done him a terrible disservice. Also, he needs to have more sensitivity to how powerful Facebook has become and the responsibility it currently has." / Twitter

Marcus Gilmer on Twitter: "Remarkable moment during which Rep. Dean (D-PA) suggests Facebook is paying for empty rooms at Trump Int’l Hotel and doing business with the hotel in an attempt to curry favor for getting Libra approved. (Sorry, fell a few minutes behind) https://t.co/8TbcDiEbV6" / Twitter

Elizabeth Warren on Twitter: "Facebook let me run an ad saying Mark Zuckerberg endorsed Donald Trump for reelection, so I’d say you probably could, @AOC. I imagine Republicans would be a lot more concerned about fact-checking Facebook ads after that." / Twitter
noting
Erick Fernandez on Twitter: "Here is @AOC's full questioning of Mark Zuckerberg.
"Could I run ads targeting Republicans in primaries saying that they voted for the Green New Deal?" https://t.co/VrGQw7UzIW" / Twitter
That's great!

 

[lpetrich]

More of that exchange:
Public Citizen on Twitter: ".@AOC: Could I run ads on Facebook targeting Republicans in primaries saying that they voted for the Green New Deal?
Mark Zuckerberg: I don’t know the answer to that off the top of my head. I think probably. https://t.co/wy46phoGp5" / Twitter

Judd Legum on Twitter: "Remarkable.
Zuckerberg tells @AOC that he DOES NOT KNOW if she could run ads in a GOP primary saying one of the candidates supports the Green New Deal
What @AOC is doing is breaking down the distinction Facebook is trying to make between "fact checking" and "voter suppression"" / Twitter

Rep. Katie Porter on Twitter: "BREAKING: CEO Grossly Underpays Employees Doing Excruciating Work, Won't Commit to Doing This Work Himself https://t.co/PStq6AMwnF" / Twitter
Doing emotionally difficult work like watching scenes of murders, stabbings, suicides, and the like.

CSPAN on Twitter: ""So, you won't take down lies or you will take down lies? I think that's just a pretty simple yes or no."
Complete exchange between @RepAOC @AOC and Mark Zuckerberg at today's House Financial Services Cmte hearing.
Full video here: [url]https://t.co/heT7Psnlp1 https://t.co/0iiWtfU5gQ" / Twitter[/url]

Twitter Users Break Out The Popcorn As Ocasio-Cortez Smokes Zuckerberg | HuffPost

 

[Angry Floof]

I watched some of the hearing. Zuckerberg seems to get more stubborn every day. He's tone deaf, self absorbed, and clueless about a number of things, including what free speech means. He seems to be oblivious to the power and influence of Facebook in shaping the world today and that he and FB are going to be remembered by history, for better or for worse. I hope Congress shreds him and his hubris to bits.

 

[lpetrich]

Take On Wall St on Twitter: "@FSCDems @RepMaxineWaters @TaxJusticeAfric @latindadd @LawyersofAfrica @AsianPeoplesMvt @facebook @civilrightsorg @ ColorOfChange @BradSherman @LacyClayMO1 @natfairhouse @ACREcampaigns @RepAlGreen @RepAOC @AOC @RepChuyGarcia @RepPressley: You represent the power, but I don’t think you understand the pain. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲. @AyannaPressle breaks it down for Mark Zuckerberg at today's @FSCDems hearing on #LibraInDC https://t.co/7tFzrhDtbU" / Twitter

Take On Wall St on Twitter: "@FSCDems @RepMaxineWaters @TaxJusticeAfric @latindadd @LawyersofAfrica @AsianPeoplesMvt @facebook @civilrightsorg @ ColorOfChange @BradSherman @LacyClayMO1 @natfairhouse @ACREcampaigns @RepAlGreen @RepAOC @AOC @RepChuyGarcia @RepPressley @AyannaPressley Also, watch what happens when @RepPressley asks Zuckerberg if he has ever been underbanked. #LibraInDC #BigTechTakeover https://t.co/yLgginwlRj" / Twitter
He claims that he was never underbanked.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Facebook is dangerous and Congress has zero skills to regulate Facebook. That they want to become a Treasury is insane and shows Zuckerberg is more like a Bond villain than some college drop out that managed to sell data.

 

[lpetrich]

MSNBC on Twitter: "Rep. Ocasio-Cortez says Facebook to receive follow up questions following Zuckerberg testimony before House panel. https://t.co/OPiGaPSOHX" / Twitter

Part of it is to address the question of whether Facebook was really an innocent bystander, as its management claims, or whether Facebook's management was actively taking part in efforts to influence the 2016 Presidential election.

 

[lpetrich]

Erick Fernandez on Twitter: "Here is @AOC's full questioning of Mark Zuckerberg.
"Could I run ads targeting Republicans in primaries saying that they voted for the Green New Deal?" https://t.co/VrGQw7UzIW" / Twitter

That's a good one. Will the right-wingers who defend freedom of lying speech like it when it's them who are lied about?

Carole Cadwalladr on Twitter: "Oh! She’s on fire. Zuck’s answers to qs about Cambridge Analytica were ‘strange & bizarre’ & she will follow up. Thank you from Britain, @aoc. We’ve had no chance. He’s in contempt of our parliament & blackballs [MENTION=622]Observer[/MENTION] & @guardian who broke story https://t.co/g4qDisOloe" / Twitter

So he refused to testify there.

 

[PyramidHead]

Why does the Madame Toussaint wax replica of Zuckerberg look more like a human being than the real Zuckerberg?

 

[TSwizzle]

Facebook is dangerous and Congress has zero skills to regulate Facebook.

In what way is Facebook dangerous ? Is it any more dangerous than say, violent computer games, unfettered access to porn or something else ? Or is it considered dangerous to democracy because it doesn't fit certain people's views on what information is exchanged on the platform ?

That they want to become a Treasury is insane and shows Zuckerberg is more like a Bond villain than some college drop out that managed to sell data.

I don't know enough about what Zuckerberg is proposing but isn't it similar to already existing crypto currencies ?

 

[RVonse]

Facebook is dangerous and Congress has zero skills to regulate Facebook.

Why is Facebook so dangerous? If I am bothered by what they have become, I can voluntary not use their platform. I can't do that with the NSA though. Thanks to Wikileaks we know that the NSA is collecting data on everyone who uses the internet, whether we use Facebook or not.

Furthermore, Facebook is just a private company who can not make me do anything I don't want to do. Yes, they can sell my data to someone else but that would not be any data that I did not voluntary give them in the first place.

I just don't get why so many people hate Facebook. And then say absolutely nothing whatsoever about the NSA totally spying on everyone all the time. The same people who would vilify Julian Assange only telling us the truth how our government sucks way way worse than Facebook ever dreamed of.

 

[southernhybrid]

Civil rights leaders aren't too happy with FB either!


https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/25/civil-rights-leaders-thought-theyd-figured-out-how-deal-with-facebook-now-they-are-livid/

But as they began to arrive in Atlanta for the Sept. 26 event, that hope turned to outrage as civil rights leaders learned that Facebook had announced what many now call the “Trump exemption” — meaning the policy allowing any politician to lie freely in ads or free posts without consequences.
Though Facebook has portrayed this decision as reflecting the nation’s ideals of unfettered political speech, civil rights leaders say they see another value emerging preeminent in Facebook’s calculations: the unfettered quest to profit from political advertising.

“The only principle is business as usual and trying to line their pockets,” said Arisha Hatch, vice president for Color of Change, one of several civil rights groups that had been in regular contact with Sandberg and others at the company. “There is no principled stand that people can take that would allow them to behave on the platform as voter suppressionists have behaved in our country for decades.”
Hatch and others view the company’s tolerance of deception against the backdrop of the nation’s ugly history of voter suppression, much of it conducted by politicians and government officials. The Russian disinformation campaign that backed Donald Trump’s election relied heavily on social media postings discouraging black voters from casting ballots, in what civil rights leaders see as a foreign update of old and largely homegrown political tactics.
Facebook’s announcement was one of several incidents in recent months that have inflamed its fragile relations with civil rights leaders, undoing years of progress on several fronts, including combating housing discrimination in the company’s ad platform.

 

[RVonse]

Civil rights leaders aren't too happy with FB either!


https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/25/civil-rights-leaders-thought-theyd-figured-out-how-deal-with-facebook-now-they-are-livid/

But as they began to arrive in Atlanta for the Sept. 26 event, that hope turned to outrage as civil rights leaders learned that Facebook had announced what many now call the “Trump exemption” — meaning the policy allowing any politician to lie freely in ads or free posts without consequences.
Though Facebook has portrayed this decision as reflecting the nation’s ideals of unfettered political speech, civil rights leaders say they see another value emerging preeminent in Facebook’s calculations: the unfettered quest to profit from political advertising.

“The only principle is business as usual and trying to line their pockets,” said Arisha Hatch, vice president for Color of Change, one of several civil rights groups that had been in regular contact with Sandberg and others at the company. “There is no principled stand that people can take that would allow them to behave on the platform as voter suppressionists have behaved in our country for decades.”
Hatch and others view the company’s tolerance of deception against the backdrop of the nation’s ugly history of voter suppression, much of it conducted by politicians and government officials. The Russian disinformation campaign that backed Donald Trump’s election relied heavily on social media postings discouraging black voters from casting ballots, in what civil rights leaders see as a foreign update of old and largely homegrown political tactics.
Facebook’s announcement was one of several incidents in recent months that have inflamed its fragile relations with civil rights leaders, undoing years of progress on several fronts, including combating housing discrimination in the company’s ad platform.

Has anyone bitching about Facebook actually used it?

I have. All it amounts to is giving a free platform to post pictures for family and friends. And lots of cartoons and harmless humor. I like that so I don't have to store my pictures on my phone, Facebook stores them and organizes them too. Yes, every once in while I might see an advertisement about something I just happen to be interested in. But I actually like that because their software helps do my shopping for me (I don't like to shop). And yes, I also see some political posts. But they are political posts from every direction because they are coming from my friends who have just about every political position you can imagine.

They are definitely collecting my data, no question. But I don't care about them.

Its the NSA I care about.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have. All it amounts to is giving a free platform to post pictures for family and friends. And lots of cartoons and harmless humor. I like that so I don't have to store my pictures on my phone, Facebook stores them and organizes them too.

De-rez's them as well.

Yes, every once in while I might see an advertisement about something I just happen to be interested in. But I actually like that because their software helps do my shopping for me (I don't like to shop).

Okay...

Step right up, step right up. Look here and see with your own eyes, a person that thinks that 9/11 had insider issues, but has absolutely no problem with faceless corporate artificial intelligence bots providing him with his shopping list. Be amazed at the obfuscation of not trusting the government, but trusting massive corporations to do his thinking for him when it comes to idealizing either a shopping list or political opinions.

 

[RVonse]

Step right up, step right up. Look here and see with your own eyes, a person that thinks that 9/11 had insider issues, but has absolutely no problem with faceless corporate artificial intelligence bots providing him with his shopping list. Be amazed at the obfuscation of not trusting the government, but trusting massive corporations to do his thinking for him when it comes to idealizing either a shopping list or political opinions.

And don't forget...I believe the Russian meddling with Trump's election was a bunch of hog wash too.

 

[TSwizzle]

But as they began to arrive in Atlanta for the Sept. 26 event, that hope turned to outrage as civil rights leaders learned that Facebook had announced what many now call the “Trump exemption” — meaning the policy allowing any politician to lie freely in ads or free posts without consequences.

I always assumed all politicians lie. Like the time Hillary had to run for cover after coming under fire from snipers or something during a visit to Bosnia or wherever. But in any event, is there an actual case where a politician has used Facebook to place an ad with such obvious lies ? Or is this a preemptive whine ? I know they use the traditional MSM to do that but I was not aware they were using Facebook. (I'm not a Facebook user).

Though Facebook has portrayed this decision as reflecting the nation’s ideals of unfettered political speech, civil rights leaders say they see another value emerging preeminent in Facebook’s calculations: the unfettered quest to profit from political advertising.

*gasp* I did not see that coming !!! Facebook wants to make a profit ?!!

“The only principle is business as usual and trying to line their pockets,” said Arisha Hatch, vice president for Color of Change, one of several civil rights groups that had been in regular contact with Sandberg and others at the company. “There is no principled stand that people can take that would allow them to behave on the platform as voter suppressionists have behaved in our country for decades.”
Hatch and others view the company’s tolerance of deception against the backdrop of the nation’s ugly history of voter suppression, much of it conducted by politicians and government officials. The Russian disinformation campaign that backed Donald Trump’s election relied heavily on social media postings discouraging black voters from casting ballots, in what civil rights leaders see as a foreign update of old and largely homegrown political tactics.
Facebook’s announcement was one of several incidents in recent months that have inflamed its fragile relations with civil rights leaders, undoing years of progress on several fronts, including combating housing discrimination in the company’s ad platform.

LOL !

 

[Lion IRC]

^Agreed^

It's the internet.
Get over it.
Neither the internet nor the invention of the printing press have delivered what was promised.

 

[lpetrich]

Zuckerberg faces heat in Congress: “It’s almost like you think this is a joke” | Ars Technica

Ayanna Pressley on being underbanked:

Almost two-thirds of the 1.7 billion people who don't have bank accounts say it's because they lack enough money to open one. So this is not about authentication. This is not about banking costs. This is about a tsunami of hurt that millions are experiencing because of a $1.6 trillion student debt crisis, rising healthcare costs, and people having to use GoFundMe to pay medical bills. This is because of the racial and gender wealth gap.

So again: You represent the power, but I don't think you understand the pain. There's underbanking because people are broke.

Katie Porter on what some of FB's employees have to go through:

You've got about 15,000 contractors watching murders, stabbings, suicides, [and] other gruesome, disgusting videos for content moderation... You pay many of those workers under $30,000 a year, and you've cut them off from mental health care when they leave the company, even if they have PTSD because of their work for your company. According to a report I have—and this is straight out of an episode of Black Mirror—these workers get nine minutes of supervised wellness time per day. That means nine minutes to cry in a stairwell while somebody watches them.

Would you be willing to commit to spending one hour a day, for the next year, watching these videos, acting as a content monitor, and only accessing the same benefits available to your workers?

 

[ZiprHead]

Zuckerberg faces heat in Congress: “It’s almost like you think this is a joke” | Ars Technica

Ayanna Pressley on being underbanked:

Almost two-thirds of the 1.7 billion people who don't have bank accounts say it's because they lack enough money to open one. So this is not about authentication. This is not about banking costs. This is about a tsunami of hurt that millions are experiencing because of a $1.6 trillion student debt crisis, rising healthcare costs, and people having to use GoFundMe to pay medical bills. This is because of the racial and gender wealth gap.

The bank my father in law kept his savings in had ridiculous fees. My wife found out about them after he passed and she took over the account. There was a monthly fee for having under five hundred dollars in the savings account as the money was used to pay her father's final expenses.

The bank my wife's employer uses (she's the office manager/bookeeper) charged them a fee because an electronic deposit was too big.

It's ridiculous.

 

[lpetrich]

AOC and Maxine Waters confront Mark Zuckerberg about giving politicians "license to lie" on Facebook | Salon.com

After describing the ease with which hate groups can use Facebook to organize and how hate speech leads to violence, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., asked, "Why haven't you stopped hate groups from using your events page? And are you endorsing these groups by leaving their events page up?"

"This is an area that I think is very important and that I take very seriously,” Zuckerberg replied, but claimed "it's very hard to police every instance of this, and a lot of the content in the stories that you are talking about I would personally condemn."

"But Mr. Zuckerberg, it is hate speech," Tlaib said. "It is hate, and it's leading to violence and death threats in my office. It's untruthful . . . It's a pretty dark time in our country, and we need to be able to play a part in reducing that violence."

Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib on Twitter: "ICYMI: When the Facebook CEO #Zuckerberg refuses to say that people with guns in front of a masjid intimidating people is not against the platform’s community standards, we have a serious issue. https://t.co/PnuOobG5Iq" / Twitter

Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, told Zuckerberg that his company’s approach to civil rights and diversity was “appalling and disgusting.” If Facebook had more diversity, she said, they could have avoided a lawsuit by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for allowing realtors to use their ad system to exclude people of certain races, gender, or background from their housing ads.

She then slammed him for not giving her a straight answer.
The Verge on Twitter: ".@RepBeatty guts Mark Zuckerberg on civil rights and housing advertisements https://t.co/8zxUocfhj4" / Twitter