Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
70 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AOC just made Mark Zuckerberg look like a deer in headlights. (Original Post) kpete Oct 2019 OP
She's pretty good... Wounded Bear Oct 2019 #1
She and Porter did a great job cornering him. blm Oct 2019 #27
meh.. Katie Porter was much better OKNancy Oct 2019 #2
Whatthefuckever. /nt tonedevil Oct 2019 #3
It's not a contest melman Oct 2019 #16
Right. "Congress...all wanted a piece of him." And got it. :) Hortensis Oct 2019 #42
Why not be gracious... SMC22307 Oct 2019 #17
Congresswoman Porter BlueIdaho Oct 2019 #25
Porter was great, as was Rep. Joyce Beatty. They asked biting questions, and.... George II Oct 2019 #46
I saw Beatty too OKNancy Oct 2019 #48
EFF! She's tough! I doubt older democrats would ask such questions ffr Oct 2019 #4
Agree 100% triron Oct 2019 #6
She did a good job, made him squirm as he struggled to not take any responsibility... brush Oct 2019 #5
Should DU have fact checkers? X_Digger Oct 2019 #8
I appreciate the problem. Setting the parameters for such regulation would be difficult. TomSlick Oct 2019 #10
There's no carve-out for internet sites.. X_Digger Oct 2019 #14
See 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1) TomSlick Oct 2019 #24
Exclusion from a liability that they already were exempt from. X_Digger Oct 2019 #41
One last attempt to explain my position. TomSlick Oct 2019 #65
No, you can't sue CNN if an asshole libels you on air. X_Digger Oct 2019 #66
You are partially correct. TomSlick Oct 2019 #67
So, I'll ask what I asked before. Do you want fact-checkers on your posts here at DU? X_Digger Oct 2019 #68
Seriatum TomSlick Oct 2019 #69
Do you think customs, laws and industry standards came into play instantly in... brush Oct 2019 #11
The government has no power to regulate the content of speech on a private website. Period. X_Digger Oct 2019 #15
OK, I get it. You have no problem with facebook allowing whatever untruths... brush Oct 2019 #19
What part of, 'the government has no power' do you not get? X_Digger Oct 2019 #20
Get past the government will you. It's about industry standards and pride in publishing... brush Oct 2019 #21
No, it isn't. You didn't watch the hearing today, did you? Not just the linked excerpt above. X_Digger Oct 2019 #22
I watched AOC question his sorry ass, and I've been a journalist for 25 years. brush Oct 2019 #23
publisher or conduit? Hermit-The-Prog Oct 2019 #28
Right. A conduit for winger/Russian bot crap. brush Oct 2019 #29
doesn't really matter -- see 47 U.S. Code Section 230 Hermit-The-Prog Oct 2019 #30
Yes, it's up to him. He doesn't have to run it. Seems he just doesn't want to be... brush Oct 2019 #31
Then you either missed it or you're being disingenuous. X_Digger Oct 2019 #37
Is there a comprehension problem? Government either does what it can or can't. brush Oct 2019 #47
And in this case, it can't, much to AOC's eventual chagrin. n/t X_Digger Oct 2019 #51
So what's your solution ? lostnfound Oct 2019 #34
The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not regulation. n/t X_Digger Oct 2019 #38
Facebook algorithms push duplicates of dangerous speech lostnfound Oct 2019 #44
Then speak louder. Organize. Educate. X_Digger Oct 2019 #49
What's an X digger anyway? lostnfound Oct 2019 #61
I used to think that way. Then I finally understood the difference. lostnfound Oct 2019 #62
Then encourage others do do so. Help organize. Donate time. *shrug* n/t X_Digger Oct 2019 #63
sure they have the power. apply libel laws of publishers to fb. a few winning lawsuits. fixed. Kurt V. Oct 2019 #52
A court would dismiss it the first day.. X_Digger Oct 2019 #53
not the same. my idiot bil doesn't affect billions of ppl. c'mon. Kurt V. Oct 2019 #55
No, but the concept is the same. Size has no impact on whether or not the gov't has the power. n/t X_Digger Oct 2019 #57
Don't you think size of audience of influence weighs heavily on many decisions in history? Kurt V. Oct 2019 #58
We're talking about government power. X_Digger Oct 2019 #59
the govt does this already. like with LAWS in libel in publishing, which was my original Kurt V. Oct 2019 #60
So, libel only applies when you do it in front of 50k people? X_Digger Oct 2019 #64
DU is not "fundamentally the same" as FB, which has a billion users. Anarchy doesn't work ... Hekate Oct 2019 #32
A good comparison to an oil spill polluting a public beach. Nt lostnfound Oct 2019 #35
DU is a public website. We have a TOS. Facebook is a public website, with a TOS. X_Digger Oct 2019 #39
Not a good comparison. DU doesn't sell advertisng or collect user data Merlot Oct 2019 #33
You may not see it, due to blockers / donation, but DU does have ads. X_Digger Oct 2019 #40
FB is paid by the advertisers, DU only gets paid when a user clicks on an ad Merlot Oct 2019 #45
DU gets paid per impression- just seeing the ad generates revenue. Yes, clicks more $. X_Digger Oct 2019 #50
It amazes me that AOC is smarter than 99% of the men, 100% of the Repubs in DC and now... JoeOtterbein Oct 2019 #7
Lol. If I thought you believed this, I'd think you proved your point, Hortensis Oct 2019 #43
I was picturing him as a deer in the headlights of a vehicle that can't stop in time. milestogo Oct 2019 #9
I'm sorry - a little off topic here - but who cuts his hair? smirkymonkey Oct 2019 #12
Deliberately stupid hair on conservative men is the new bowtie. tenderfoot Oct 2019 #26
trump. lol Kurt V. Oct 2019 #54
Julius Caesar's guy Lars39 Oct 2019 #36
I hate Zuck's dump haircut Polybius Oct 2019 #13
Lloyd Christmas? blugbox Oct 2019 #18
Means nothing! Facebook is not going to change at140 Oct 2019 #56
Godzilla vs Bambi. Mc Mike Oct 2019 #70

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
42. Right. "Congress...all wanted a piece of him." And got it. :)
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 08:23 AM
Oct 2019
Congress couldn’t agree on what exactly was wrong with Mark Zuckerberg. But they all wanted a piece of him: Sixty members of Congress got their five minutes of fame.

With some notable exceptions, Congress came across as prepared, serious, and thoughtful — especially compared to prior outings, when technological illiteracy reigned supreme. ... But almost all of the questions — no matter the issue area — centered on the overwhelming question of trust. One member suggested that Facebook had lied. Another said Facebook was often found at the “scene of the crime.” ...

“Freedom of expression is really hard — at least really hard if it means anything,” Congressman Jim Himes said, bringing up catastrophes like Facebook’s role in facilitating the massacre of the Rohingya people in Myanmar. “Tell us what investment you’re making so that this freedom of expression which you enable is a good thing rather than a bad thing.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/10/23/20928859/libra-hearing-congress-mark-zuckerberg


WaPo: Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.) upbraided Zuckerberg for his company’s role in serving as an “accelerant in many of the destructive” political fights around the world. “Facebook has been systemically found at the scene of the crime,” he began. “Do you think that’s just a coincidence?”

"Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) later echoed those (Maxine Waters') concerns that Facebook permits a “lower standard for truthfulness and decency” for politicians, adding: “It is hate speech, it’s hate, and it’s leading to violence and death threats in my office.”

SMC22307

(8,088 posts)
17. Why not be gracious...
Wed Oct 23, 2019, 10:39 PM
Oct 2019

and admit that both Democratic women were outstanding against that little shit Zuckerberg? So petty.

BlueIdaho

(13,582 posts)
25. Congresswoman Porter
Wed Oct 23, 2019, 11:15 PM
Oct 2019

Is a force to be reckoned with. Especially doing cross examination of a hostile witness like Zuckerfuck.

George II

(67,782 posts)
46. Porter was great, as was Rep. Joyce Beatty. They asked biting questions, and....
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 10:34 AM
Oct 2019

...both came up with their questions themselves. They didn't solicit questions from anonymous sources on twitter.

ffr

(22,644 posts)
4. EFF! She's tough! I doubt older democrats would ask such questions
Wed Oct 23, 2019, 05:35 PM
Oct 2019

simply because they wouldn't know what or how to ask an effective question like she can.

On Zuckerberg & Facebook. Anyone with an account on Facebook should seriously consider taking it down, simply from the use your information provides in misinformation campaigns used on that platform. Fuck fakebook!

brush

(53,467 posts)
5. She did a good job, made him squirm as he struggled to not take any responsibility...
Wed Oct 23, 2019, 05:43 PM
Oct 2019

Last edited Wed Oct 23, 2019, 10:08 PM - Edit history (1)

for what goes on his platform. He's a publisher and should have editors fact checking everything that goes on his site.

Everything!

He comes off as a hands-off, right-leaning jerk who doesn't care what he publishes as long as the money keeps coming in.

This is exactly one reason why Mayor Pete and all our candidates should steer clear of being associated with him.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
8. Should DU have fact checkers?
Wed Oct 23, 2019, 08:31 PM
Oct 2019

Should every post be regulated?

This site is fundamentally the same. Not a public entity, not a broadcaster using FCC airwaves.

Under which power of the government would you require such 'fact checking'?

TomSlick

(11,032 posts)
10. I appreciate the problem. Setting the parameters for such regulation would be difficult.
Wed Oct 23, 2019, 09:34 PM
Oct 2019

A good start would be to remove the special protections in federal law for internet "platforms" and apply the same regulations to Facebook, etc,. as apply to other publishers.

The concept of regulations applying only to broadcasters using the airwaves is antiquated. Very few people pull television from the airwaves anymore. Nevertheless, the FCC regulates broadcasters.

I get the statewide newspaper in Arkansas over the internet - the only way it is available outside of Little Rock. That newspaper will eventually only be available state-wide over the Internet. When that happens, it will nevertheless be held to the same rules as other publishers. Facebook, etc., are no different. They are publishers and should not have special protections written into federal law.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
14. There's no carve-out for internet sites..
Wed Oct 23, 2019, 10:32 PM
Oct 2019

The FCC has the power to regulate the content of broadcast television because it uses public airwaves. Regulation of a public resource for public good.

When devices do use public radio frequencies (wifi, cell service, etc), it falls under FCC mandate. The internet does not use such airwaves.

Therefore, the FCC has no power to regulate the content of websites, generally.

Do you want the FCC scrutinizing *your* posts? Fact-checking you? What if one of your posts is not factual? Should the FCC remove it?

TomSlick

(11,032 posts)
24. See 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1)
Wed Oct 23, 2019, 11:09 PM
Oct 2019

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

I am responsible for my posts. If I defame someone in a post, I am liable. If I suborn perjury, threaten violence against a public official, incite insurrection, etc., in a post, I am criminally liable. If I commit one of these acts and it is published by a traditional publisher or broadcaster, it is also liable. However, if I post the defamation, or suborn perjury, incite insurrection, etc., on an internet platform, e.g. Facebook, it has no liability.

I appreciate the difficulties of internet platforms reviewing all posts before they go on line. However, they should be required to pull-down any tortious or illegal post when it is brought to their notice. Regulation of internet platforms would not be simple but that does not mean it should not be done.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
41. Exclusion from a liability that they already were exempt from.
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 08:08 AM
Oct 2019

You can't hold ma bell responsible for the idiot screaming at you over the phone.

What power of government allows the regulation of speech on a private website?

Do you want DU to have such a filter, then?

TomSlick

(11,032 posts)
65. One last attempt to explain my position.
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 08:01 PM
Oct 2019

A traditional publisher or broadcaster is civilly or criminally liable if it republishes tortious or criminal speech. An internet platform would be similarly liable but for the statutory exemption cited before. I do not think that an internet platform should be held to the same standard as a traditional publisher or broadcaster but neither should it have no standard at all. At a minimum, when an internet platform is placed on notice of tortious or criminal content, it should be required to pull it down.

The Internet is simply too important in modern society. It cannot be a lawless environment. I am all about free speech but free speech has never been an absolute right. If, as I believe, Internet platforms cannot be held to exactly the same standard as traditional publishers, we should be able to devise some workable set of regulations.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
66. No, you can't sue CNN if an asshole libels you on air.
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 08:05 PM
Oct 2019

Well, you can try, but ask Hair Twitler how that's working out for him.

I can say, "Donald Trump eats Ivanka's shit from his gold-plated toilet bowl." And he can't sue DU (and win), either.

But then again, DU isn't CNN. Facebook isn't CNN, either.

If it doesn't apply to DU, it wouldn't apply to facebook. Popularity doesn't suddenly make one subject to regulation.

TomSlick

(11,032 posts)
67. You are partially correct.
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 08:12 PM
Oct 2019

You cannot sue CNN if someone libels you on live TV. However, if CNN replays the libel - if it republishes - then it has also libeled.

You are correct that any regulation applicable to Facebook would also apply to DU. Geese and Ganders.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
68. So, I'll ask what I asked before. Do you want fact-checkers on your posts here at DU?
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 08:54 PM
Oct 2019

Should the FCC fine you when you say, 'Fuck' as they do for broadcast TV?

Should Hair Twitler be able to sue DU for my post above?



Yeah, how's that suing CNN going for this little shithead? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nativeamerican/cnn-hit-with-275-million-defamation-suit-by-kentucky-student-idUSKBN1QU0BY

Oops, I called the little asshole a name. I hear he likes to jerk off to kiddie pics. Oops, DU's going to get sued, too, since when you view this post, DU is re-publishing it.

Oh noes.

TomSlick

(11,032 posts)
69. Seriatum
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 10:55 PM
Oct 2019

No, the FCC should not be able to fine you for using obscene language. There are different standards for "broadcast" television at different times of the day. There are different standards yet for cable television. There should reasonably be different standards for internet platforms. I make it a point to not post anything I would not want my mother to read but everyone has different personal standards. DU has standards as outlined in the Terms of Use. These standards are enforced by the Administrators and jurors.

Anytime someone asks "can they sue me?" The answer is always yes. Anyone willing to pay the filing fee and a process server can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything. Whether the lawsuit will survive dismissal or summary disposition is a different question. Whether the case will draw Rule 11 sanctions is yet another question.

Calling Trump a vulgar name is not my style but it is not actionable. Matters of opinion are generally not defamatory. Moreover, under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, it is very difficult for a public figure to maintain an action for defamation.

brush

(53,467 posts)
11. Do you think customs, laws and industry standards came into play instantly in...
Wed Oct 23, 2019, 10:13 PM
Oct 2019

in other areas of publishing?

It's fairly apparent that they haven't caught up with quick advances of online publishing. As for facebook and DU being basically the same, that's laughable.

What's your angle?

Are you arguing for facebook to continue publishing untruths with impunity? By allowing such in 2016 is one of the reasons we have an unfit, orange liar in the WH.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
15. The government has no power to regulate the content of speech on a private website. Period.
Wed Oct 23, 2019, 10:34 PM
Oct 2019

No matter how popular facebook is, it is still not a government-ran website, nor does it use public airwaves, a la broadcast television.

Just like you can say, 'fuck' on cable television, the FCC can't say shit for me yelling 'FUCK' on facebook, or here on DU.



brush

(53,467 posts)
19. OK, I get it. You have no problem with facebook allowing whatever untruths...
Wed Oct 23, 2019, 10:44 PM
Oct 2019

people want to put on its site. Zuckerberg, if he had anything driving him besides profit margin would want his platform to edit/police itself, which is what publishers and journalist pride themselves on.

Newspaper and broadcast TV sites employ editors to do that exactly—you know, standards and practices and pride in what goes on their site.

You'd think he'd want that, and you too btw.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
20. What part of, 'the government has no power' do you not get?
Wed Oct 23, 2019, 10:53 PM
Oct 2019

Kindly keep your fingers out of my mouth, thanks. My words come out just fine. Besides, I don't know where your fingers have been.

What I like, or don't like, or have a problem with, or don't have a problem with- is fucking immaterial.

The government has no power to regulate the content of speech on a private website.

brush

(53,467 posts)
21. Get past the government will you. It's about industry standards and pride in publishing...
Wed Oct 23, 2019, 10:56 PM
Oct 2019

the truth. Not rocket science.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
22. No, it isn't. You didn't watch the hearing today, did you? Not just the linked excerpt above.
Wed Oct 23, 2019, 10:58 PM
Oct 2019

Go watch it, then come back and tell me it's not about 'the government'.

brush

(53,467 posts)
23. I watched AOC question his sorry ass, and I've been a journalist for 25 years.
Wed Oct 23, 2019, 11:03 PM
Oct 2019

He's a publisher and one would think he'd have pride in what is published under his name.

You have no idea.

Hermit-The-Prog

(33,021 posts)
30. doesn't really matter -- see 47 U.S. Code Section 230
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 12:27 AM
Oct 2019
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

This part is especially relevant:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.


Facebook can (and should) do screening, but can't be considered the publisher of the RW/Russian bot crap. Zuckerberg can ruin it for everybody else by allowing that shit to become a national hazard and emergency.

brush

(53,467 posts)
31. Yes, it's up to him. He doesn't have to run it. Seems he just doesn't want to be...
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 12:35 AM
Oct 2019

bothered policing what appears on his site—even after what happened in 2016.

He's got to be a trumper IMO to not even care if lies run on his platform.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
37. Then you either missed it or you're being disingenuous.
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 07:58 AM
Oct 2019

It's clear that what's being talked about is government regulation.

Which the government has no power to do.

brush

(53,467 posts)
47. Is there a comprehension problem? Government either does what it can or can't.
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 10:35 AM
Oct 2019

in journalism it's about professional standards and pride in what you published, not being dependant on the government. Zuckerberg can institute those standard to police what goes on his site but it's clear he has no intention in doing that.

You'd think that since facebook reaches a fourth of th world's population he'd take responsibility in making sure what goes on his site is truth and fact as much as possible.

Guess hiring some editors would be a drain on his humongous profit margin.

lostnfound

(16,138 posts)
44. Facebook algorithms push duplicates of dangerous speech
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 09:47 AM
Oct 2019

It’s a mechanism handing out powerful megaphones to inflammatory lies
Say whatever you want to 10 people IRL or to a crowd of 100; that’s free speech.
Allowing people to spread lies and conspiracy theories to millions of dumbasses is like yelling fire in a crowded theatre
Judge the question by its fruits. Trump in the White House, white supremacy on the rise, western democracy being dismantled by rightwing nationalists
You don’t think that’s a good outcome, so you?

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
49. Then speak louder. Organize. Educate.
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 06:08 PM
Oct 2019

I will never agree with curtailing speech I don't like, because sooner or later those in power will feel the same about speech I do like.

lostnfound

(16,138 posts)
62. I used to think that way. Then I finally understood the difference.
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 07:26 PM
Oct 2019

We can have a country covered in litter and rotting trash, so that Russians and white supremacists can blab on and spread their disease. Lots of little bits saying “Like! Like! Like!”
I wouldn’t go into that cesspool of Facebook to “speak louder” if you paid me. And I’m no good at it anyway.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
53. A court would dismiss it the first day..
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 06:28 PM
Oct 2019

.. and likely make the accuser pay court costs.

Can you sue ma bell for your idiot brother for slander on the phone?

Of course not, that'd be fucking stupid.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
57. No, but the concept is the same. Size has no impact on whether or not the gov't has the power. n/t
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 07:00 PM
Oct 2019

Kurt V.

(5,624 posts)
58. Don't you think size of audience of influence weighs heavily on many decisions in history?
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 07:09 PM
Oct 2019

Governmental or otherwise.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
59. We're talking about government power.
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 07:13 PM
Oct 2019

The government doesn't get to set aside the first amendment when some counter ticks above some imaginary point.

"Oh, can't regulate religion? Well, we can once you have a million followers!"

That's the thing about a principle. It has to apply universally, or it's not a principle, it's just a preference.

Kurt V.

(5,624 posts)
60. the govt does this already. like with LAWS in libel in publishing, which was my original
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 07:19 PM
Oct 2019

and quite simple point. good grief

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
64. So, libel only applies when you do it in front of 50k people?
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 07:48 PM
Oct 2019

Of course not. That would be moronic.

Can DU be sued for libel when I say, "Donald Trump beats his children with a gold-plated rope."

Of course not, that would be stupid. I could be, but DU could not.

If it doesn't apply to DU, it doesn't apply to facebook. Just as it wouldn't apply to ma bell if I did it on the phone.

That is a simple point.

Hekate

(90,189 posts)
32. DU is not "fundamentally the same" as FB, which has a billion users. Anarchy doesn't work ...
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 12:35 AM
Oct 2019

...anywhere online, as you should well know.

Here at DU we have the TOS and a self-policing system that keeps the trolls in check, but we are a relatively small group, especially when compared to FB.

"Under what power of government?" Well, since common decency and a sense of the social contract are not working for Mr Zuckerberg, he needs laws to regulate his business.

So do oil companies that spill their crap all over my beach. The oil companies (to extend the comparison) may think my unusable beach and its dead and stinking sea life are not their problem, and that their only responsibility is to their shareholders, but there are in fact a body of laws that say otherwise.

When he allows and even encourages political actors to flood the cyberverse with lies, he is causing immeasurable harm to this country. He shrugs. Cambridge Analytica paid their bills on time and he thinks this is not his responsibility. "My God how the money rolls in" says the old song about a whorehouse.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
39. DU is a public website. We have a TOS. Facebook is a public website, with a TOS.
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 08:02 AM
Oct 2019

We are fundamentally the same, it's a matter of scope.

"Under what power of government?" Well, since common decency and a sense of the social contract are not working for Mr Zuckerberg, he needs laws to regulate his business.


"Common decency" is codified in what section of US code? What article of the constitution is that, again?

Merlot

(9,696 posts)
33. Not a good comparison. DU doesn't sell advertisng or collect user data
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 01:38 AM
Oct 2019

so no way to target voters. People reading DU understand the difference between a post and paid advertising.

FB is a large international billion dollar company which makes it's money via advertising. they can afford to hire fact checkers.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
40. You may not see it, due to blockers / donation, but DU does have ads.
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 08:04 AM
Oct 2019

And DU knows quite a bit about us, if they care to collate the data.

Every day we tell deeply personal stories about ourselves here.

Yes, FB is big. That doesn't suddenly give the government the power to regulate speech there.

Merlot

(9,696 posts)
45. FB is paid by the advertisers, DU only gets paid when a user clicks on an ad
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 10:07 AM
Oct 2019

DU is also not collection our data for sell to said advertisers. Cookies do that on our computers

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
50. DU gets paid per impression- just seeing the ad generates revenue. Yes, clicks more $.
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 06:11 PM
Oct 2019

I would posit that DU is an incredible collection of our data. It's only though the good will of our overlord that it's not sold.

But it's his site, he can do with it as he chooses. Our choice is to use it, or leave. That's about it.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
43. Lol. If I thought you believed this, I'd think you proved your point,
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 08:39 AM
Oct 2019

at least where one man was concerned. Come on, Joe. Surely it's wrong to deny the validity of this, along with the serious grillings of many other Democratic members. They're all fighting for us.

And in one tense exchange, Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.) upbraided Zuckerberg for his company’s role in serving as an “accelerant in many of the destructive” political fights around the world. “Facebook has been systemically found at the scene of the crime,” he began. “Do you think that’s just a coincidence?”
 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
12. I'm sorry - a little off topic here - but who cuts his hair?
Wed Oct 23, 2019, 10:17 PM
Oct 2019

His gardener? Just look at that dork! How can anyone take him seriously?

tenderfoot

(8,424 posts)
26. Deliberately stupid hair on conservative men is the new bowtie.
Wed Oct 23, 2019, 11:34 PM
Oct 2019

We're talking to you Trey Gowdy, DT, Boris Johnson, Zuck....

at140

(6,110 posts)
56. Means nothing! Facebook is not going to change
Thu Oct 24, 2019, 06:38 PM
Oct 2019

it's methods, regardless of how AOC made Zuckerberg look like deer in headlights.
As CEO, he has all the power behind him with a Billion users of FB.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»AOC just made Mark Zucker...