Sen. Cruz Asks Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg the Brutal Questions

2
The Senate hearing with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Tuesday was the usual waste of time one has come to expect from congressional committees. The one exception was the questions asked by Senator Ted Cruz.

Leaders, Senators Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein don’t know anything about the topic nor do most of the congressional interviewers. That resulted in softball questioning with little or no follow up.

The senators concentrated on Cambridge Analytica, a UK firm that improperly collected the information of millions of Facebook users. The Senate ignored the same activities conducted by Barack Obama’s Organizing for America.

The big concern from the senators was about privacy. How ironic that the government is worried about our privacy.

Mr. Zuckerberg said he is going to take down hate speech – even more than they allegedly do now. Unfortunately, Zuckerberg is using very left-wing fact-checkers and that makes one wonder how he defines hate speech.

The best moment came when Senator Ted Cruz addressed the question on the minds of many. He is the one senator who grilled Mr. Zuckerberg unsparingly.

2 COMMENTS

  1. Zuckerberg sure looked like a snake slivering around the questions by Cruz. The questions went on and on in repetition on data use. I understood at the outset that your privacy was on the line in the platform. My daughter wanted me to join and I refused for just that reason. It was “obvious” to me that the business model would require the “user” to be the “product”. That business model would need to have “your” data in order to make profits. Virtually every website has no choice but to use ads in some way, Unless you pay some fee to use the site. With Facebook the user “chooses”, in a direct way, which ads are served.

    Therefore, why all the uproar by some third party wanting to harvest that data. Every user should have understood this and realized the purpose of third-party apps. Evidently there are myriads of apps for the IPhone, or any SmartPhone for that matter, and no-doubt there is an agreement to click on. In every case you have “agreed” to let them “use” that data.

    In the five hours of questions very, very, little was discussed regarding “content” and THIS was mentioned time and again by Zuckerberg. But that is never defined in a satisfactory manner. Also mentioned is the term “misinformation”. These are VERY subjective terms and can apply in the most evil of ways. Another suspicious term he used numerous times was efforts to ban “hate speech”. We already know Zuckerberg’s policy aligns with Germany’s Merkel in determining ‘hate speech’ as ANYTHING “anti-migrant”. Are “we” to use the ‘hate speech’ defined by Antifa and associates. Therefore I am FAR MORE concerned with the “content” that Facebook wants to prohibit.

    The MOST pertinent question was “How many regulatory experts did Facebook have when he began in that dorm”. So, of course Facebook is very willing to see more and more “regulation”. Regulation has ALWAYS allowed the Powerful to STAY powerful and makes it prohibitive for new startups. INSTEAD, anti-trust should be the goal and never allow companies to buy up competitive entities. It was that consolidation that prompted the breakup of the Oil Barons. Microsoft thwarted the breakup that was on the horizon and it’s been a disaster. Whether Facebook or Google these should be required to split apart. Google should never have been allowed to buy up YouTube and many other entities. Facebook should never have been allowed to buy Instagram and many other entities.

    It was assumed the breakup of MaBelle would diminish future innovation. Instead it spawned even greater innovation that has continued. It began a mobile telephone industry that spread to common-carriers, not part of the old Bell-At&t system, and eventually began the cellular industry, including all these players. Just as it was with MaBelle so should it be with these new style “common carriers”.

Comments are closed.