I find it deeply disturbing that Ted Cruz thinks Facebook is entrusted with that much responsibility. Expecting Zuckerberg to protect expression is like expecting Ronald McDonald to raise your kids.
He destroyed Zuckerberg because he didn't know why some groups were deleted and because he doesn't know the political leaning of his co-workers?
No, he destroyed Zuckerberg because Zuck first came up with conflicting statements and once he realized he couldn't give a straight answer he started trying to avoid giving an answer altogether.
Must be difficult trying to get a coherent speech from someone who's obviously completely incompetent and clueless about the work he's supposed to be doing and the people who's interests he claims to serve. But I think it must have been hard for Cruz as well.
haha..not only him..others senators are doing the same..you can clearly see it in Mark Zuckerberg's face..everytime a question that hit him & he has no answers to it..or doesn't want to answer it.
It's quite obvious that Zuck has lost track of where his creation is going or what it is doing.
You should care just as much as you should care about ruskis in US politics.
I would love to learn why, please explain
Because he has absolutely no clue on how to respond to the questions that Cruz made him regarding the platform he runs. If he had things under control he wouldn't have tried to slip back to terrorism, nudity and violence when asked questions about political censorship.
It's quite obvious that Zuck has lost track of where his creation is going or what it is doing.
You should care just as much as you should care about ruskis in US politics.
I would love to learn why, please explain
Because he has absolutely no clue on how to respond to the questions that Cruz made him regarding the platform he runs. If he had things under control he wouldn't have tried to slip back to terrorism, nudity and violence when asked questions about political censorship.
sorry I dont understand, can you explain in more detail its very unclear.
please have a focus on the 'why' part of my question which means 'why does it matter'?
I don't really want to defend either person here, but if you want Facebook to regulate itself in terms of stopping Russia from interfering with democracy, stopping the spread of fake news, getting rid of hate speech, nudity, etc then it becomes very difficult to expect them to also be "neutral" because the two premises clash with each other. 4chan is essentially what you get when neutrality and anything goes are your goals and I think most Facebook users wouldn't be comfortable with that.
It's quite obvious that Zuck has lost track of where his creation is going or what it is doing.
You should care just as much as you should care about ruskis in US politics.
I would love to learn why, please explain
Because he has absolutely no clue on how to respond to the questions that Cruz made him regarding the platform he runs. If he had things under control he wouldn't have tried to slip back to terrorism, nudity and violence when asked questions about political censorship.
sorry I dont understand, can you explain in more detail its very unclear.
please have a focus on the 'why' part of my question which means 'why does it matter'?
Aren't you the one who whined about Russia's interference? You're the one who should be explaining to the rest of us why it matters since Russia's interference happened on facebook. lol
It's quite obvious that Zuck has lost track of where his creation is going or what it is doing.
You should care just as much as you should care about ruskis in US politics.
I would love to learn why, please explain
Because he has absolutely no clue on how to respond to the questions that Cruz made him regarding the platform he runs. If he had things under control he wouldn't have tried to slip back to terrorism, nudity and violence when asked questions about political censorship.
sorry I dont understand, can you explain in more detail its very unclear.
please have a focus on the 'why' part of my question which means 'why does it matter'?
Aren't you the one who whined about Russia's interference? You're the one who should be explaining to the rest of us why it matters since Russia's interference happened on facebook. lol
what does that have to do with my question?
Ted Cruz absolutely destroys Mark Zuckerberg over Facebook's practices
I don't really want to defend either person here, but if you want Facebook to regulate itself in terms of stopping Russia from interfering with democracy, stopping the spread of fake news, getting rid of hate speech, nudity, etc then it becomes very difficult to expect them to also be "neutral" because the two premises clash with each other. 4chan is essentially what you get when neutrality and anything goes are your goals and I think most Facebook users wouldn't be comfortable with that.
So how does judging the "Diamond and Silk" page "unsafe to the community" and limiting their reach help in Facebook's mission of getting rid of fake news, hate speech and spreading nudity?
Ted Cruz absolutely destroys Mark Zuckerberg over Facebook's practices
WHY
DOES
THAT
MATTER?
Sorry, already played this game with you. If you're having trouble reading things that have already been written that's on you to re-read, not on me to re-write.
Ted Cruz absolutely destroys Mark Zuckerberg over Facebook's practices
WHY
DOES
THAT
MATTER?
Sorry, already played this game with you. If you're having trouble reading things that have already been written that's on you to re-read, not on me to re-write.
you never answered the question. you answered a lot of questions I didnt ask but not this one.
Facebook is a lame unimportant social networking site that people dont even use anymore.
why does grilling it or not make any ^&*( difference to anything!?
I don't really want to defend either person here, but if you want Facebook to regulate itself in terms of stopping Russia from interfering with democracy, stopping the spread of fake news, getting rid of hate speech, nudity, etc then it becomes very difficult to expect them to also be "neutral" because the two premises clash with each other. 4chan is essentially what you get when neutrality and anything goes are your goals and I think most Facebook users wouldn't be comfortable with that.
So how does judging the "Diamond and Silk" page "unsafe to the community" and limiting their reach help in Facebook's mission of getting rid of fake news, hate speech and spreading nudity?
I have no idea what the "Diamond and Silk" page is or was about. Maybe you can fill me in on what it posted regularly and what this controversy even is?
Regardless of this my point is broader than any singular instance or even multiple instances of failure on Facebook's part, but focused more directly on the point Ted Cruise brought up which was the question of whether or not Facebook should be expected to censure a certain criteria of material while also truly remaining "nuetral" in the things that it allows on it's website. If something ges incorrectly labeled as fake news or a political ad, or wrongly taken down due to threats towards democracy it's being done so because facebook is actively not being nuetral on purpose. Now they may get it wrong accidentally, or they become completely corrupt and try to tip the scales for one political party, the first being understandable yet open to scrutiny for anyone who wants to take advantage of it (like Ted Cruise was doing in that video) and the second being pretty unforgivable, buuuut at the same time not that different from what a ton of other websites and outlets like Fox News try to do on a daily basis. However nuetrality is not the goal of well-meaning censorship, safety is the goal. The point is that you just really can't have nuetrality and the regulation of information (and facebook is essentially a purely information based company) at the same time.
Haha. I watched part of it live. Yes I have rarely seen them chop up a corporate person publicly like that. Oh well. I am more interested in what they actually do with this. Cause I would still be surprised if they actually did anything good and didn't twist this in their favor somehow.
have to go and have a bunch of politicians berate you for a few hours and get in some zingers so they can put together highlight reels for the news and for their campaigns.
have to go and have a bunch of politicians berate you for a few hours and get in some zingers so they can put together highlight reels for the news and for their campaigns.
did anyone notice that none of the question (at least that I saw) had anything to do with the data left.
they were just general and abstract and some completely off topic.
I don't really want to defend either person here, but if you want Facebook to regulate itself in terms of stopping Russia from interfering with democracy, stopping the spread of fake news, getting rid of hate speech, nudity, etc then it becomes very difficult to expect them to also be "neutral" because the two premises clash with each other. 4chan is essentially what you get when neutrality and anything goes are your goals and I think most Facebook users wouldn't be comfortable with that.
So how does judging the "Diamond and Silk" page "unsafe to the community" and limiting their reach help in Facebook's mission of getting rid of fake news, hate speech and spreading nudity?
It doesn't matter. Facebook can censor whoever they want.
I don't really want to defend either person here, but if you want Facebook to regulate itself in terms of stopping Russia from interfering with democracy, stopping the spread of fake news, getting rid of hate speech, nudity, etc then it becomes very difficult to expect them to also be "neutral" because the two premises clash with each other. 4chan is essentially what you get when neutrality and anything goes are your goals and I think most Facebook users wouldn't be comfortable with that.
So how does judging the "Diamond and Silk" page "unsafe to the community" and limiting their reach help in Facebook's mission of getting rid of fake news, hate speech and spreading nudity?
It doesn't matter. Facebook can censor whoever they want.
and speaking for myself I am all for spreading nudity
I don't really want to defend either person here, but if you want Facebook to regulate itself in terms of stopping Russia from interfering with democracy, stopping the spread of fake news, getting rid of hate speech, nudity, etc then it becomes very difficult to expect them to also be "neutral" because the two premises clash with each other. 4chan is essentially what you get when neutrality and anything goes are your goals and I think most Facebook users wouldn't be comfortable with that.
So how does judging the "Diamond and Silk" page "unsafe to the community" and limiting their reach help in Facebook's mission of getting rid of fake news, hate speech and spreading nudity?
It doesn't matter. Facebook can censor whoever they want.
and speaking for myself I am all for spreading nudity
I mean I'm generally cool with it myself, I'm just saying that many parents with kids on facebook wouldn't be.
Cruz is a joke, a wannabe celebrity hack. All I remember from this bumbling idiot is "more cowbells, more cowbells". Well, I'm happy he gave Zuckerberg a good thrashing. To be honest, they have a monopoly/stranglehold that exists because of the commie government policies, and that is the reason why all these issues of privacy have come up lately.
I got a completely different impression. It seemed like zuckerberg was tasked with trying to explain the internet to old people who were way out of their element.
I don't really want to defend either person here, but if you want Facebook to regulate itself in terms of stopping Russia from interfering with democracy, stopping the spread of fake news, getting rid of hate speech, nudity, etc then it becomes very difficult to expect them to also be "neutral" because the two premises clash with each other. 4chan is essentially what you get when neutrality and anything goes are your goals and I think most Facebook users wouldn't be comfortable with that.
Define hate speech to an international company.
pro tip: Hate speech is arbitrarily decided based on culture.
I don't really want to defend either person here, but if you want Facebook to regulate itself in terms of stopping Russia from interfering with democracy, stopping the spread of fake news, getting rid of hate speech, nudity, etc then it becomes very difficult to expect them to also be "neutral" because the two premises clash with each other. 4chan is essentially what you get when neutrality and anything goes are your goals and I think most Facebook users wouldn't be comfortable with that.
Define hate speech to an international company.
pro tip: Hate speech is arbitrarily decided based on culture.
True, I'm not sure how it goes against my main point, but still true.
I got a completely different impression. It seemed like zuckerberg was tasked with trying to explain the internet to old people who were way out of their element.
that is EXACTLY what it felt like to me.
They didnt even know which questions would be relevant to data left or not.
Zuckerberg really does look inhuman in a lot of his pics. I'm not a believer in aliens (life is too complex to form throughout the cosmos; we're lucky even we exist), but . . . . . . if someone told me there was one alien on Earth disguised as human . . . . . . Zuck would be it.
Log in to comment