(04-11-2018 09:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...7fe8101fa1

Articles makes it sound like Senators are favorable to Facebook (most of them probably get donations).

Zuckerberg played Sgt. Schultz at the hearing-I know nothing.

"...Problem is, whenever the questioning got tough, Zuckerberg made clear that he could not be trusted to give an answer.

How many improper data transfers to third parties have there been?
“I can have my team follow up with you.”
How many fake accounts have been removed?
“I’m happy to have my team follow up with you.”
Were Facebook employees involved with Cambridge Analytica’s help for Donald Trump?
“I can certainly have my team get back to you.”

Can Facebook track browsing activity after a user logs off?
“It would probably be better to have my team follow up afterwards.”
What regulations would he support?
“I’ll have my team follow up with you.”
Where do the 87 million Facebook users who had their data scraped for Cambridge Analytica come from?
“We can follow up with your office.”
Does Facebook collect user data through cross-device tracking?
“I want to have my team follow up with you on that.”
Is Facebook a neutral forum or does it engage in First Amendment-protected speech?
“I would need to follow up with you on that.”
Zuckerberg was practically crying out for adult supervision...."

To be blunt, Zuckerberg had no idea what section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is, which is a fundamentally critical aspect to the core business functions of internet providers and information content providers.

This is like a attorney specializing in gun issues having no clue what the Second Amendment is or says.

When he was asked by Ted Cruz about Facebook and section 230, he looked like a guppy out of water and gulping for air.

Edited to add link to Section 230, so you all can understand more than Zuckerberg does about this:

Section 230