Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Tech regulation coming?
Author Message
stinkfist Online
laughing at MSM meltdown
*

Posts: 37,716
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 1709
I Root For: StL Cards & USM
Location: who knows?
Post: #41
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(01-02-2018 10:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 02:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(01-01-2018 09:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-31-2017 02:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(12-27-2017 03:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The issue isnt the legal issue of censorship. Google, Facebook, Twitter (and all the rest) are *all* private actors. They can legally 'censor' whatever the blast they want whenever they want with *no* legal repercussions.

To legislate (or use government action such as suing) to stop their practice is more dangerous than the perceived benefit.

Why do you want a version a "equal time rule" or "fairness doctrine" for social media companies? Honestly speaking, if such regulations were put into place I think the social media companies would (justly so) sue the fing pants off the government for a violation of *their* First Amendment rights as private actors.

The *only* justification for such rules and doctrines is that normal broadcast radio and TV use limited resources (spectrum). The license to use that spectrum (a very limited resource, mind you) is that they *don't* put their hands on the scales.

I fail to see *any* justification for government regulation for social media at all. In fact, I would extremely worried if they did.

It matters when you do a monopoly analysis.

I dont see any problems with Sherman or Clayton.

Sherman 1 requires :
(1) an agreement;
(2) which unreasonably restrains competition; and
(3) which affects interstate commerce.
(anticompetive collusion).

No agreement between any of the social media, no Sherman 1 violation.

Sherman 2a requires:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market; and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.
(misuse of monopoly power in an anti-competitive)

Again, the individual social media might meet element 1. But what in the 'bad usage' complained of is quashing other competition? None that I can see.

Sherman 2b requires:

(1) qualifying exclusionary or anticompetitive acts designed to establish a monopoly
(2) specific intent to monopolize; and
(3) dangerous probability of success (actual monopolization).

(attempted monopolization through bad acts. Again no violation.)

Clayton Act -- many individual and particularized violations, including such items as:
Quote:price discrimination between different purchasers if such a discrimination substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce (Act Section 2, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 13);

sales on the condition that (A) the buyer or lessee not deal with the competitors of the seller or lessor ("exclusive dealings") or (B) the buyer also purchase another different product ("tying") but only when these acts substantially lessen competition (Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 14);

mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition (Act Section 7, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18) or where the voting securities and assets threshold is met (Act Section 7a, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18a);

any person from being a director of two or more competing corporations, if those corporations would violate the anti-trust criteria by merging (Act Section 8; codified 1200 at 15 U.S.C. § 19).

(From Wikipedia entry for Clayton Act)

Again, no current violation by 'big tech'.

So under a current "monopoly analysis" there are no problems.

By your statement
Quote:It matters when you do a monopoly analysis.

it seems that you must mean "[i] matters when you do a brand new defined variety of monopoly analysis as opposed to anything that actually exists.

What I hear from the "brand new defined analysis" that runs through this thread really amounts to nothing more than an "equal time rule" or "fairness doctrine" for social media companies. I can't support that in the slightest. And I guess that is where you and I will probably have to agree to disagree.

you're arguing an outdated law in scope....that's the problem....

what needs to be argued is how to adapt to current practices.....

I easily understand choice....however, when something is embedded as first pass and almost always first click, one has to question such being competitive on any device....

my point in total was to show that the post that i responded to that said 'you have to use a monopoly analysis' just iant applicable for assessing facebook etc.

could you expand on your 'first click' and 'first pass' comment? im not sure i fully understand your point. thanks in advance.

sorry about missing your response.....

the monopolistic side isn't just the business model, it's that combined with the database/algorithmic side of what one sees.....

that's why I used "outdated".... it wouldn't be hard to prove that google has a search engine monopoly coupled with how data is manipulated/purchased/sold that has intent to coerce and limit how information is dispensed....

I now have to manipulate queries now due to their bs......most don't know how or care.....and it's becoming increasingly more difficult to achieve the desired result....toss in the brainwashing side of the equation, and it turns into another propaganda machine....

that should scare anyone and why lines 1b, 1c, 3 and 4 exist in my sig.....

"first pass" references the initial 'slanted/biased' return from said query....

hth explain my position....
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2018 07:00 AM by stinkfist.)
03-21-2018 01:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,102
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Tech regulation coming?
And that monopoly is being used in the sale of advertising. For example, GT is saying how it is essential for a business to be on Facebook.
That's not like saying you need to advertise. That's saying you need to use a specific provider. That's a problem.
03-21-2018 08:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,985
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 162
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(03-20-2018 12:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Opinion piece
References tweet by Sen Klobuchar
Facebook breach: This is a major breach that must be investigated. It’s clear these platforms can’t police themselves. I've called for more transparency & accountability for online political ads. They say “trust us.” Mark Zuckerberg needs to testify before Senate Judiciary.
— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) March 17, 2018

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu...71224211d9

There is no fundamental difference between the Obama campaign's harvesting and scraping of Facebook data and CA's harvesting and scraping of the same types of. Except one.

I find it odd that it is such a big scandal today. (and I'm debating putting the [sarcasm on] and [/sarcasm] delimiters around the previous sentence....)
03-23-2018 04:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,985
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 162
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(03-21-2018 01:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 10:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 02:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(01-01-2018 09:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-31-2017 02:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It matters when you do a monopoly analysis.

I dont see any problems with Sherman or Clayton.

Sherman 1 requires :
(1) an agreement;
(2) which unreasonably restrains competition; and
(3) which affects interstate commerce.
(anticompetive collusion).

No agreement between any of the social media, no Sherman 1 violation.

Sherman 2a requires:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market; and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.
(misuse of monopoly power in an anti-competitive)

Again, the individual social media might meet element 1. But what in the 'bad usage' complained of is quashing other competition? None that I can see.

Sherman 2b requires:

(1) qualifying exclusionary or anticompetitive acts designed to establish a monopoly
(2) specific intent to monopolize; and
(3) dangerous probability of success (actual monopolization).

(attempted monopolization through bad acts. Again no violation.)

Clayton Act -- many individual and particularized violations, including such items as:
Quote:price discrimination between different purchasers if such a discrimination substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce (Act Section 2, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 13);

sales on the condition that (A) the buyer or lessee not deal with the competitors of the seller or lessor ("exclusive dealings") or (B) the buyer also purchase another different product ("tying") but only when these acts substantially lessen competition (Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 14);

mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition (Act Section 7, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18) or where the voting securities and assets threshold is met (Act Section 7a, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18a);

any person from being a director of two or more competing corporations, if those corporations would violate the anti-trust criteria by merging (Act Section 8; codified 1200 at 15 U.S.C. § 19).

(From Wikipedia entry for Clayton Act)

Again, no current violation by 'big tech'.

So under a current "monopoly analysis" there are no problems.

By your statement
Quote:It matters when you do a monopoly analysis.

it seems that you must mean "[i] matters when you do a brand new defined variety of monopoly analysis as opposed to anything that actually exists.

What I hear from the "brand new defined analysis" that runs through this thread really amounts to nothing more than an "equal time rule" or "fairness doctrine" for social media companies. I can't support that in the slightest. And I guess that is where you and I will probably have to agree to disagree.

you're arguing an outdated law in scope....that's the problem....

what needs to be argued is how to adapt to current practices.....

I easily understand choice....however, when something is embedded as first pass and almost always first click, one has to question such being competitive on any device....

my point in total was to show that the post that i responded to that said 'you have to use a monopoly analysis' just iant applicable for assessing facebook etc.

could you expand on your 'first click' and 'first pass' comment? im not sure i fully understand your point. thanks in advance.

sorry about missing your response.....

the monopolistic side isn't just the business model, it's that combined with the database/algorithmic side of what one sees.....

that's why I used "outdated".... it wouldn't be hard to prove that google has a search engine monopoly coupled with how data is manipulated/purchased/sold that has intent to coerce and limit how information is dispensed....

I now have to manipulate queries now due to their bs......most don't know how or care.....and it's becoming increasingly more difficult to achieve the desired result....toss in the brainwashing side of the equation, and it turns into another propaganda machine....

that should scare anyone and why lines 1b, 1c, 3 and 4 exist in my sig.....

"first pass" references the initial 'slanted/biased' return from said query....

hth explain my position....

In what manner would you suggest updating the anti-trust laws (or for that matter, forming new anti-trust laws, or even new other types of legal restrictions)? If there is such a strong feeling that 'something should be done' (and I am not necessarily disagreeing with that POV, mind you), then *what* exactly is the '*something* that should be done'?

Not to be disrespectful, and hopefully the next comment is not taken as such, but, for example, after *every* mass shooting scads of people run around saying 'something should be done' without saying much more.

I can see where Google has an inordinate amount of power of the tie-in of personal information and the delivery of information, that delivery being tailored.

I can see the even *more* massive extent that Facebook penetrates personal information.

But, what exactly is happening that is so utterly *bad*, and what are the steps needed to help that problem?
(This post was last modified: 03-23-2018 04:30 PM by tanqtonic.)
03-23-2018 04:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 22,179
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 650
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(03-23-2018 04:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(03-20-2018 12:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Opinion piece
References tweet by Sen Klobuchar
Facebook breach: This is a major breach that must be investigated. It’s clear these platforms can’t police themselves. I've called for more transparency & accountability for online political ads. They say “trust us.” Mark Zuckerberg needs to testify before Senate Judiciary.
— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) March 17, 2018

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu...71224211d9

There is no fundamental difference between the Obama campaign's harvesting and scraping of Facebook data and CA's harvesting and scraping of the same types of. Except one.

I find it odd that it is such a big scandal today. (and I'm debating putting the [sarcasm on] and [/sarcasm] delimiters around the previous sentence....)

No.

Obama's campaign absolutely did collect data BUT it was when the user logged into the Obama site AND clicked an OK for sharing their OWN Facebook data.

The user if they cared, knew Obama's campaign was the one getting the data.

If you will recall. The Obama campaign and Democratic Party were at odds in 2008 and 2012 over the Obama campaign's refusal to give that data to the Party and when they finally turned over data in 2012 the party was outraged because it was heavily redacted removing much of the identifiable personal data.

Cambridge Analytica set up a Facebook personality test. It not only gathered your data as a part of the test, it used your friends list to extract information about people who did not take the personality quiz and did not consent to their data being gathered. So my dumb*** friends who take every quiz that pops up gave some data about me to Cambridge.

No one involved in taking the tests had any idea they were giving up data for political purposes, everyone who went to the Obama site, should have been aware they were doing just that when they clicked OK.

Cambridge got access to the data by claiming to be doing academic research rather than building a sophisticated commercial data set. Cambridge retained the data in violation of their research agreement.

The two are NOT the same.
03-24-2018 10:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 55,773
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1127
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #46
RE: Tech regulation coming?
Obama’s campaign harvested data about me without my permission, and shared it with seemingly every democrat candidate on the planet. And yes, I believe it was obtained under false pretenses.
03-24-2018 12:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,102
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(03-24-2018 10:18 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-23-2018 04:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(03-20-2018 12:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Opinion piece
References tweet by Sen Klobuchar
Facebook breach: This is a major breach that must be investigated. It’s clear these platforms can’t police themselves. I've called for more transparency & accountability for online political ads. They say “trust us.” Mark Zuckerberg needs to testify before Senate Judiciary.
— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) March 17, 2018

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu...71224211d9

There is no fundamental difference between the Obama campaign's harvesting and scraping of Facebook data and CA's harvesting and scraping of the same types of. Except one.

I find it odd that it is such a big scandal today. (and I'm debating putting the [sarcasm on] and [/sarcasm] delimiters around the previous sentence....)

No.

Obama's campaign absolutely did collect data BUT it was when the user logged into the Obama site AND clicked an OK for sharing their OWN Facebook data.

The user if they cared, knew Obama's campaign was the one getting the data.

If you will recall. The Obama campaign and Democratic Party were at odds in 2008 and 2012 over the Obama campaign's refusal to give that data to the Party and when they finally turned over data in 2012 the party was outraged because it was heavily redacted removing much of the identifiable personal data.

Cambridge Analytica set up a Facebook personality test. It not only gathered your data as a part of the test, it used your friends list to extract information about people who did not take the personality quiz and did not consent to their data being gathered. So my dumb*** friends who take every quiz that pops up gave some data about me to Cambridge.

No one involved in taking the tests had any idea they were giving up data for political purposes, everyone who went to the Obama site, should have been aware they were doing just that when they clicked OK.

Cambridge got access to the data by claiming to be doing academic research rather than building a sophisticated commercial data set. Cambridge retained the data in violation of their research agreement.

The two are NOT the same.

They are the same. One friend giving ok meant all of their friends got their data scrounged without their approval.
03-25-2018 11:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,985
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 162
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(03-25-2018 11:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(03-24-2018 10:18 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-23-2018 04:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(03-20-2018 12:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Opinion piece
References tweet by Sen Klobuchar
Facebook breach: This is a major breach that must be investigated. It’s clear these platforms can’t police themselves. I've called for more transparency & accountability for online political ads. They say “trust us.” Mark Zuckerberg needs to testify before Senate Judiciary.
— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) March 17, 2018

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu...71224211d9

There is no fundamental difference between the Obama campaign's harvesting and scraping of Facebook data and CA's harvesting and scraping of the same types of. Except one.

I find it odd that it is such a big scandal today. (and I'm debating putting the [sarcasm on] and [/sarcasm] delimiters around the previous sentence....)

No.

Obama's campaign absolutely did collect data BUT it was when the user logged into the Obama site AND clicked an OK for sharing their OWN Facebook data.

The user if they cared, knew Obama's campaign was the one getting the data.

If you will recall. The Obama campaign and Democratic Party were at odds in 2008 and 2012 over the Obama campaign's refusal to give that data to the Party and when they finally turned over data in 2012 the party was outraged because it was heavily redacted removing much of the identifiable personal data.

Cambridge Analytica set up a Facebook personality test. It not only gathered your data as a part of the test, it used your friends list to extract information about people who did not take the personality quiz and did not consent to their data being gathered. So my dumb*** friends who take every quiz that pops up gave some data about me to Cambridge.

No one involved in taking the tests had any idea they were giving up data for political purposes, everyone who went to the Obama site, should have been aware they were doing just that when they clicked OK.

Cambridge got access to the data by claiming to be doing academic research rather than building a sophisticated commercial data set. Cambridge retained the data in violation of their research agreement.

The two are NOT the same.

They are the same. One friend giving ok meant all of their friends got their data scrounged without their approval.

The *only* difference was that the Obama program got a users approval, but then (without consent or knowledge) harvested deep data on all of their friends. The only consent given by the user was to enable the user to 'contact' their friends using the user's name and introduction. Nothing was ever said about harvesting far deeper data on the friends list.

Cambridge used subterfuge on the original user to gain access to any user data. Further, Cambridge did keep the data in violation of the commercial agreement. But, with regards to keeping the data, the only reason there was a violation was that Facebook changed their terms in 2015. When you read any comments from Team Obama, their comments are scripted to say "We did everything within the rules."


The only difference in the two can be summarized is in this example:

In the first case I invite someone into my house and give them permission to use the restroom. That person then rifles through my desk and steals jewelry.

In the second case, someone says they are a meter reader, and I give them permission to read the meter. The meter reader enters the house through a window and proceeds to rifle through my desk and steals jewelry.

I see absolutely no major moral or ethical distinction between the two. But those people who support Obama (and who presumably are part of the 'Resistance') apparently see that moral or ethical distinction quite clearly.

Turning back to the present day comments of Team Obama of "we did everything within the rules", one portion is patently false:

a) they mined deep data on user's friends without any consent from the user (the only consent was to 'send' friends messages, not co-opt data on 'location, likes, etc.'), not even to mention any consent whatsoever from the friends.

Another portion is that the comments only say "they were within the 'rules' ", rules that were expressly changed in 2015 to preclude much of the rest of Team Obama's activities. Just saying there is some very good word parsing from Team Obama on this subject at the present time; almost worthy of a Bill Clinton 'what is the meaning of 'is' ' award.
(This post was last modified: 03-25-2018 01:26 PM by tanqtonic.)
03-25-2018 01:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 22,179
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 650
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Tech regulation coming?
Facebook is now suggesting regulation is needed. Be willing to bet the regulations will be great Facebook and onerous for a start-up to comply with.
03-25-2018 09:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 55,773
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1127
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #50
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(03-25-2018 09:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Facebook is now suggesting regulation is needed. Be willing to bet the regulations will be great Facebook and onerous for a start-up to comply with.

Of course. That is the purpose of regulations.
03-25-2018 09:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,102
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Tech regulation coming?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/h...reporters/

High-tech needs some muckrakers. Good read on how they have avoided more oversight until now.
03-27-2018 09:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 22,179
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 650
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(03-27-2018 09:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/h...reporters/

High-tech needs some muckrakers. Good read on how they have avoided more oversight until now.

Until just recently has anyone other than Daring Fireball been pointing out the inherent problems of user information companies like Facebook and Google?
03-27-2018 04:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 22,179
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 650
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Tech regulation coming?
New extension for Firefox blocks most Facebook tracking
https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/faceboo...extension/
03-27-2018 05:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 22,179
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 650
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Tech regulation coming?
I have a TV with Roku built in. Watched a soccer game on one of the Spanish language channels (using SAP audio for English) on satellite. Next day the Roku page has an ad in Spanish. You can't fart without without some company gathering information about it.
03-28-2018 06:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,985
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 162
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(03-28-2018 06:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I have a TV with Roku built in. Watched a soccer game on one of the Spanish language channels (using SAP audio for English) on satellite. Next day the Roku page has an ad in Spanish. You can't fart without without some company gathering information about it.

Quien dice eso?
03-28-2018 10:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,102
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Tech regulation coming?
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a...th/557585/

"...In this environment, radical proposals suddenly become plausible. Regulation, which conventional wisdom held would never materialize in the United States, is suddenly theoretically accepted by Mark Zuckerberg as the cost of his failures. (His porous half-promise to abide by the principles of forthcoming European privacy rules, however, belie the sincerity of his contrition.) The spirit of the movement has even caught the fancy of Republicans, as well as centrists. Plummeting stock prices reflect a growing sentiment that constraints are inevitable. To lambaste Zuckerberg at these hearings is a necessary precondition for the development of robust policy, an important moment in the reordering of political economy—power brought to bear against power."
04-10-2018 07:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 22,179
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 650
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Tech regulation coming?
Corporations play the Brer Rabbit game.
Don't throw me in the brer patch.

They WANT to be regulated. In Facebook's case it's so they can assert in future breaches and related issues that they were compliant with the regulations so they can mitigate or even prevent the awarding of damages. Car companies want safety regulations. They want to walk into the courtroom and say we did everything reasonable for safety, see we did what the government says the standard should be. You don't want to operate in an environment where a jury in Florida is saying X is the safety standard and a jury in Texas says something else.

You have to complain about regulation or you might get some you don't like.
04-10-2018 09:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,102
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #58
RE: Tech regulation coming?
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...."
04-11-2018 09:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 22,179
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 650
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(04-11-2018 09:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  Articles makes it sound like Senators are favorable to Facebook (most of them probably get donations).

No probably to it.
Facebook donated to 46 of 55 committee members.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...486313002/
04-11-2018 10:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,985
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 162
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #60
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(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
(This post was last modified: 04-11-2018 04:51 PM by tanqtonic.)
04-11-2018 04:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.