Trending Content
| +87 | GF doesn’t care about her looks | 56 | 32m | |
| +59 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 23 | 19h | |
| +49 | How to sound more eloquent? | 17 | 6h | |
| +38 | 400k/year in HVAC sales? | 26 | 1d | |
| +33 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 23 | 2d | |
| +29 | WSO Ranking On Resume??? | 7 | 4h | |
| +27 | Why do people listen to Jim Cramer Investing Advice? | 10 | 21h | |
| +26 | Carnivore Diet | 9 | 21h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 19h | |
| +23 | Chaotic Insane investment banker who passed away in the 90s or 2000s | 12 | 1d |
Career Resources
I hate his stupid face
I'm sure Zuck is looking to come as close to a monopoly as he can without hitting a regulatory wall. That's what's in his and FB's best interest. As far as regulations, this is a bit outside my sphere of knowledge but if I had to speculate I'd say security and data sharing requirements and disclosures should be looked at.
The bigger issue, in my mind, is the selective censorship FB, Twitter, and others impose. I know the social media companies say they don't censor based on political stances, but I find that extraordinarily hard to believe.
Tuned into watching a bit of the trial and it's really just a bunch of political grandstanding. Facebook also didn't "sell" the data; an application developer that leveraged Facebook SSO + "Do you agree to let "APPLICATION" view all of your shit" feature got a bunch of people to leverage his shitty, kitschy psychology app and sold that data for millions.
Could Facebook have prevented this? Maybe, but hindsight 20/20 for uncharted territory surrounding personal information. Zuck's autistic demeanor is really playing to his strengths as he's getting pummeled with baseless accusations by antiquated senate members.
I'm actually a fan of Zuck and think the dude is brilliant. Some may perceive the guy to be evil, but at the end of the day, he's donating 99% of his wealth upon death to charity. Ruthless in business like the best of them, but a good cause at the core of it. Can't say the same about other guys up there like Soros and Icahn.
The ruthlessness I don't mind, hell, I admire and appreciate it. But he has a long history of laughing off privacy concerns and only seems to care now because of the amount of blowback and publicity.
Also Icahn has signed The Giving Pledge.
I stand corrected on Icahn. Changes my perspective on him for sure.
Esuric made a post about it, but it's been common knowledge since the inception that Facebook is aggregating data and selling ads. You have the choice to participate or not. It's really that simple.
Google is worse or on-par with the same shit. Snowden blew the lid off all of this in like 2013. Remember PRISM?
Facebook is creepy though. I have a family member that runs a internet marketing firm that markets exclusively on FB due to it's effectiveness. You're able to craft exact persona based on demographics, drill down into exact zip codes and overlay financial data from Equifax or Transunion to financially pre-qualify who ever your serving your ads to. The precision / data sources available (that were available) was nuts.
If AT&T + Time Warner deal closes, AT&T is going to compete in the space with AT&T Network Level data, Time Warner Content Viewership data, + whatever data sources you want to overlay and push targeted micro-ads.
Privacy on the mainstream internet for the layman has been done for a while now. The difference between now and before is the advances in analytical technology (e.g. Facebook's State of the Art Graph Analytics Pipeline) to quickly make sense of all discrete data.
Does Facebook need regulated? Yes. Things should be regulated if they have the ability to harm the public and Facebook clearly has no control over fake news being proliferated on their platform on a daily basis and no real concern for its users' privacy. Public safety is a basic tenant of government.
Is Congress capable of implementing intelligent regulations on Facebook without making things worse and/or missing the point completely? Unclear. This is the US Government we are talking about.
Are these hearings awkward because many of the congressmen and women don't understand the basic details involved? Good lord yes.
Facebook is a pile of shit. Zuckerberg shoild get raked over the coals. I have no problem with collecting data (hence why it’s free), but when FB is tracking outside behavior, text messages, influencing speech and pushing a political agenda, they deserve to be crushed.
They’ve overstepped and should get crucified. And when you’re an agent of the government, don’t piss the government off. He’s getting what he deserves. Autistic cyborg.
I'm interested to see how the EU's GDPR is going to affect their business there and more importantly whether they're then going to implement similar compliance practices worldwide.
It's a bit frightening that the EU could effectively manage free speech for the world in the same way that California is so big that U.S. companies often conform national practices to California law out of necessity.
I think Google/YouTube/Facebook/Twitter, et al should be no more regulated than a newspaper is regulated (which isn't much at all). However, newspapers (and other publishers) are held accountable for libelous things that are posted/written/published and copyrighted content that is misappropriated. Since these social media platforms are now explicitly taking it upon themselves to edit and censor content then they are no longer simply platforms--they are publishers. And as such, they should be held legally accountable for content.
The idea that Facebook should be sued for libel because they are actually making an attempt to limit fake news is ridiculous. You're giving them two shitty alternatives, 1.) don't do anything and let fake news run wild, which they'll inevitably face backlash for or 2.) do something and risk getting sued for libel, when they had nothing to do with the original story.
You know as well as I do that we're not talking about Facebook, et al attacking "fake news"--we're talking about these platforms literally censoring voices based solely on content. For example, the recent controversy with Facebook arbitrarily deciding that Diamond & Silk--two black female Trump supporters with more than 1 million page subscribers--pose a "danger" to the community, with absolutely no explanation. Or Twitter arbitraily shaddow banning users. Or YouTube suspending accounts without explanation based on political content. Or Google manipulating search engine results based on political content.
This is all 100% ok since they are private platforms, but publishers are liable for the content that they post. Since Facebook edits and regulates words and speech that is allowable on its platform, it should be held to account for the copyright violations and libelous content that it doesn't remove. The Washington Post, for example, is held to account for the libel and copyright infringements that emanate from its news platform.
Edit: since you no doubt follow only left-wing news outlets, it actually is likely that you honestly believe these platforms are only regulating content based on whether or not they are "fake news." It would be beneficial for you to actually get outside of your news bubble.
This is how I feel about facebook, who cares? If you don't want your data out there don't use it, it's that simple. Posters like @TNA" are whining like they whine about every other percieved bastion of liberality because it's what they do, turn everything into a political gambit. I personally don't use the platform or any other social media. The idea that we should have government regulating a private social media company because they rightfully use the data they possess to earn money is asinine. The idea that FB is some sort of monopoly is laughable.
Sure dude.
Reality is a large enough number of people use FB. They collect outside data, far beyond what people expect them to. Everyone knows FB sells data to marketers on the site. FB collecting text data off of phones is beyond reason.
Furthermore, FB is actively selecting which news is fake aka what doesn’t push a liberal narrative. If they were pushing a Koch brothers narrative you’d be pissed.
FB should be a social platform. The second they start silencing one view point over another, spying on people outside of their platform and otherwise violating the trust of their users, they should be butt fucked.
And if it wasn’t a big deal, the delete Facebook movement wouldn’t be so real. Or clownberg wouldn’t be in front of Congress.
Ut ipsa reiciendis consequatur ipsa rerum ipsum. Ex ad culpa accusamus temporibus. Sed nesciunt enim quis veritatis.
Dolor sit quia similique molestiae. Rerum est sed sit ut. Molestias consequuntur beatae qui dicta. Quae veritatis qui cupiditate quis et.
Temporibus architecto qui ut et. Corrupti repellendus qui et et exercitationem rerum. Est et in libero. Excepturi et nihil quidem. Eligendi velit in necessitatibus temporibus nulla perspiciatis. Similique non odit minus ut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...