Zuckerberg Grilled At Angry Facebook Shareholder's Meeting (mercurynews.com) 165
An anonymous reader quotes the Mercury News' report on Facebook's annual shareholder's meeting:
On Thursday in Menlo Park, one investor compared the social network's poor stewardship of user data to a human rights violation. Another warned that scandal is not good for Facebook's bottom line. And one advised Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg to emulate George Washington, not Vladimir Putin, and avoid turning Facebook into a "corporate dictatorship." Facebook struggled to keep order, kicking one woman out of the meeting within the first few minutes for repeated interruptions. A plane zipped overhead pulling a banner that read "YOU BROKE DEMOCRACY" and advertising Freedom From Facebook, a group of privacy and anti-monopoly activists that are pressing the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to break up the company...
Zuckerberg repeated the same reassurances he used in front of U.S. and European lawmakers earlier this year: The company hasn't taken a broad enough view of its responsibility... "We're also very focused on being more transparent," Zuckerberg said, touting the fact that the company had just posted its policies on content moderation for the first time. Minutes earlier, the company announced that shareholder proposals for more transparency and oversight had failed, surprising no one. Zuckerberg controls the company through special stock that gives him more votes than other shareholders.
"Facebook said that just because the proposals were blocked, that didn't mean the company doesn't care about these issues."
Zuckerberg repeated the same reassurances he used in front of U.S. and European lawmakers earlier this year: The company hasn't taken a broad enough view of its responsibility... "We're also very focused on being more transparent," Zuckerberg said, touting the fact that the company had just posted its policies on content moderation for the first time. Minutes earlier, the company announced that shareholder proposals for more transparency and oversight had failed, surprising no one. Zuckerberg controls the company through special stock that gives him more votes than other shareholders.
"Facebook said that just because the proposals were blocked, that didn't mean the company doesn't care about these issues."
Re:Obama used the same social media tactics agains (Score:5, Informative)
Micro-targeting of voters was used by Obama against Hillary.
But when Trump does it, suddenly Facebook has overstepped.
The problem is Facebook's shitty policies which allowed a researcher to obtain details of people who hadn't agreed to give them and the amount of people's whose details were gathered. Who used them is not the issue.
Re: (Score:1)
So what you are saying is, that both parties are corrupt and use the government to their own political advantage. The best you two can do is argue about which side fucks the other side harder? Really?
This is what is fucking wrong with this country. Fucks like the both of you are too worried about your "team" (aka political party) scoring points against the other side. Not a single fucking one of you partisan shithea
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Sweet Jeesus. I mean, SWEEEEEEET JEEEAAAASSSUUUUSSS! OMG PWNIES. It's like cra-cra and stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop. I see the problem, right there.
Re: Obama used the same social media tactics again (Score:5, Informative)
In Obama's case an app was made and people OPTED INTO giving it their personal data. In Cambridge's case the data was taken without CONSENT.
See the difference and the line that was crossed? I capitalized them so it's easier for you to pick out from inside the blurry Fox bubble.
Re: Obama used the same social media tactics agai (Score:1)
Sure people gave consent. They consented for facebook to have their info and they voluntarily dumped personal info into the machine. Cambridge was allowed by Facebook to get that data in exchange for money. It is part of the 3rd party sharing in the terms and conditions that people agreed to when they signed up. This is no scandal, only that people say they want privacy but won't take any action to actually get there. If you don't want facebook to have yout info, don't give it to them. Novel concept.
Re: Obama used the same social media tactics aga (Score:5, Informative)
No it wasn't what people agreed to. Facebook's first response was that Cambridge violated the terms of use of said data access. Facebook did a piss poor job of enforcing data protection but that doesn't make this a "business as it was designed" situation.
Re: Obama used the same social media tactics aga (Score:5, Insightful)
No it wasn't what people agreed to.
Like people know what they agree to.
Granted, most people didn't expect their data to be weaponized.
Facebook's first response was that Cambridge violated the terms of use of said data access.
Once your data is sold to someone, it is theirs. The idea that the seller can enforce how the buyer uses that data is cute.
Facebook did a piss poor job of enforcing data protection but that doesn't make this a "business as it was designed" situation.
It is business as it will be used. Zuckerberg cannot get out f his responsibility for this.
There is a saying, unfortunately attributed to Nikita Kruschev, that goes something like:
"The last capitalist would sell the hangman the rope used to string up his own mother."
Zuck does not actually care that he was caught, or the results of what he shares responsibility for. He cares that it might affect his bottom line, though.
Re: (Score:2)
most people didn't expect their data to be weaponized.
They loaded my data into missiles and shot them at someone? This is a stupid word. I wish people would stop using it.
Re: (Score:2)
most people didn't expect their data to be weaponized.
They loaded my data into missiles and shot them at someone? This is a stupid word. I wish people would stop using it.
We both know that not all weapons go boom or put holes in things.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I expect we have paid posters here sent to deflect conversations.
Your suspicions are correct. The over-reliance on howaboutism is one big clue.
Expect a reply to this something like "Well, Hillary and O'Blama used howaboutism"
Its howaboutism all the way down.
Re: Obama used the same social media tactics agai (Score:1)
Claims of howaboutism are just mindless sheep deflecting from their own hypocritical stands in the past when called out on them. It is a cheap and very weak rhetorical song n dance designed to dodge the point when you have no defense from the charge of being a hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2)
Claims of howaboutism are just mindless sheep deflecting from their own hypocritical stands in the past when called out on them. It is a cheap and very weak rhetorical song n dance designed to dodge the point when you have no defense from the charge of being a hypocrite.
How's the weather in Moscow Ivan? Have you ever seen the inside of thr Black Dolphin? Now look Ivan, here's your problem with howaboutism. Let's say your favorite politician is accused of say - diddleing a little girl. I mention that he diddled a little girl, and you in a fine howaboutism dugeon, scream "Well how about Hillary and Pizzagate! Her and O'Blama diddled millions of children!"
Because by employing Howaboutism to defend your favorite politician by yelling that someone else did that, you are th
Re: Obama used the same social media tactics agai (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
As I said, you are a regressive and intellectually stagnant individual who bears the consequences of the roads your yourself choose to follow. To whine after the fact which could have been prevented with foresight and preemptive action born of wisdom, is a sign of how stunted you are and therefore how invalid your opinions are. You are not a victim of others, you are a victim of your own stupidity, much like a man who shoots himself in the foot isn't the victim of the gun seller but the victim of his own st
Re: (Score:1)
Didn't Obama's app harvest the details from the friends of people that agreed? So people who DIDN'T CONSENT. Tell me how that crossing of the line is different.
Re: Obama used the same social media tactics agai (Score:2, Insightful)
Obama invented this strategy and won twice with it.
The facts haven't changed, its liberal opinions that change. It is a mental disorder .
When Nate silver was doing the same thing to announce ahead of time that Obama would win, he was a hero.
When Nate did the same thing again and said trump might win, he disappeared again.
Re: Obama used the same social media tactics agai (Score:2)
No. Next question.
Re:Obama used the same social media tactics agains (Score:4, Informative)
The solution is surely to restrict political advertising during elections. Other countries do this already.
We should certainly ban political advertising by foreigners near an election, just as we already ban campaign contributions from foreigners. Sadly, its the same politicians who enforce that ban, so it's not exactly strict.
But when it comes to Americans running political ads during elections, that's exactly what is meant by "freedom of the press". And freedom of the press should not be limited to the likes of Bezos, who can buy the Washington Post to get his opinion out there. Us peons who can only buy an ad, not the whole paper, also deserve freedom to express political dissent during an election.
Also, where's the line between an ad an an op-ed? Between an op-ed and selective reporting? If you follow through on your proposal, you're saying that CNN can run 24/7 anti-Trump coverage near an election, and in fact can't mention Trump negatively (or positively, as if) near the election at all. That's sort of the opposite of freedom of the press.
Re: Obama used the same social media tactics agai (Score:1)
No worries for the press today since theyâ(TM)re all owned by a major political party.
Mostly owned by the DNC but the Rs have a few outlets too which of course get labeled extremist or alt-whatever.
Either way the press is now perfectly free to parrot their political masters.
Re: Obama used the same social media tactics aga (Score:1)
It's funny how the Rs are. With all this war chest against them you would think they were some losing underdog without a chance at a seat. Minority parties in other countries don't whine as much as the Rs. And the endless fear mongering. Everyone is out to get them; no one has anything better to do.
Re: Obama used the same social media tactics again (Score:4, Interesting)
No, freedom of the press was not regarding political ads. It was to ensure that the public could be informed by the press about government malfeasance without state reprisal.
Again, is the freedom to publish one's political view limited to the like of Bezos and Murdock, who can buy a newspaper corporation, or ordinary people who can only buy an ad?
Re: (Score:2)
Again, is the freedom to publish one's political view limited to the like of Bezos and Murdock, who can buy a newspaper corporation, or ordinary people who can only buy an ad?
The press is free to refuse to publish. You have no right to buy ads.
Write your own pamphlets, run your own private press - that is explicitly protected.
Re: Obama used the same social media tactics again (Score:4, Informative)
The press is free to refuse to publish. You have no right to buy ads.
Write your own pamphlets, run your own private press - that is explicitly protected.
You're making a new argument, unrelated to the previous topic of the thread. The point was the government must not prevent you from buying political ads. And the broadcast media (OTA TV and radio) does not have the right to refuse to publish, because the airwaves are regulated by that same government. Heck, I remember DJs in Florida apologizing for political ads during the 2000 election, explaining this very thing - people would call in and yell at the station for the (woefully mistargeted) political ads they were running, but they had no choice.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, the government's powers to limit political advertising are very limited.if not non-existent, according to the US Supreme Court. See 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, and Citizens United v FEC. Politically-related advertisements have been interpreted as having virtually no restrictions.
Hillary Clinton and her supporters also have major logic flaws in their argument that she "lost because of Russian interference". She herself has also claimed dozens of other reasons for her
Re: (Score:3)
as a foreigner, why would i care about your laws and why should your "advertisement ban by foreigners" be in any way binding to me? i never in y life set foot on USA soil, and i dont intend to
That's great and all, but we're talking about the US government regulating US corporations, and US political campaigns.
Re: Obama used the same social media tactics again (Score:1)
And why shouldn't GP commentator br able to conduct whatever sort of political campaign, even one directed at American voters, from his home country outside the US? Are we going to set up a great firewall that blocks out foreign political advocacy?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes - that has always been the law.
Americans determine the government of America. Seems right to me. The Queen of England has the money to outspend everyone else in an American presidential election, but we fought a war to prevent exactly that sort of control.
Re: (Score:2)
Determine is not the same as discuss. Americans can determine their own countries government, whilst the rest of the world discuss publicly the corruption at every level in US government, from political parties to local councils, corrupt as fuck. Clinton the corporate whore, the Shrub, Darth Cheney, Uncle Tom Obama the Choom Gang Coward, all are up for discussion, get the fuck over it.
The Thirteen Russian trolls thing was entirely bullshit, the ads were not ads at all, they were click bait, that led to pay
Re: (Score:3)
That's great and all, but we're talking about the US government regulating US corporations, and US political campaigns.
That's not how the world works anymore - that started changing with the advent of radio, which doesn't recognize borders, and culminated with Internet. A media company headquartered in Ireland and an ad agency in Bucarest can present ads to an American public with the US government having no direct jurisdiction.
They can attempt to squash any US based operations a company may have in retaliation, but then they risk running afoul of constitutional protections.
Re:Obama used the same social media tactics agains (Score:4, Informative)
But when it comes to Americans running political ads during elections, that's exactly what is meant by "freedom of the press".
Um, no. Freedom of the press was all about the government not being able to suppress editorial content, not regulation of paid content.
The baffling supreme court decision that the first amendment should be interpreted to classify money as speech wasn't from 1796, but 1976.
This, along with the "corporate personhood" doctrine, has subverted the constitution and amendments from what was the obvious intent to something completely different, eroding the safeties of the individual from abuse of power that the founding fathers clearly had in mind.
Re:Obama used the same social media tactics agains (Score:4, Interesting)
Again, are you really arguing that an ordinary person, who can only afford to buy an ad, not a newspaper corporation, does not have the right to political expression? Are you sure you want to say "political speech is only protected for 1%ers"?
You're even implying (intentionally?) that a group of like-minded people can't pool their money to show a film critical of a political candidate. Did you mean to imply that, or have I misunderstood you?
Re: (Score:3)
Again, are you really arguing that an ordinary person, who can only afford to buy an ad, not a newspaper corporation, does not have the right to political expression? Are you sure you want to say "political speech is only protected for 1%ers"?
No, I am not arguing that at all, as you well know. You're trying to construct a strawman here.
Every individual has and should have the right to political expression, but not the right to buy publishing. Buying publishing does not give equal right of expression, it gives more expression the deeper your pockets are, which favors the 1%'ers.
One system used by some countries is to only allow political ads paid for by the parties, using money received from the government based on the primary representation ea
Re: (Score:3)
Every individual has and should have the right to political expression, but not the right to buy publishing.
OK, now I'm just confused. Bezos should not have the right to buy the Washington Post? Murdoch should not have the right to buy the but the Wall Street Journal, or to start Fox News?
You seem to be imagining a difference between "political expression" and "buying publishing" when it comes to freedom of the press, but I can't follow your argument. Would you limit freedom of the press to what one guy can do with a laser printer, handing out handbills on a corner?
If Murdoch want to reach a national audience
Re: (Score:2)
Where specifically is the line you're drawing here, if not restricting the freedom to the very rich? Ban both?
It's rather simple - if money changes hands for the purpose of advertising politics, it's illegal. If no money changes hands, it's not. That levels the playing field so those with more money cannot get more exposure, and those with no money can get none.
The rich have no problems getting their voice heard. None. It's disingenuous to pretend that placing restrictions on the wealthy will make their voice not heard. Restricting the volume of the megaphone does not silence a person.
The problem with the US s
Re: (Score:2)
It's rather simple - if money changes hands for the purpose of advertising politics, it's illegal. If no money changes hands, it's not. That levels the playing field so those with more money cannot get more exposure, and those with no money can get none.
does it? the wealthy own the media outlets.
Re: (Score:2)
It's rather simple - if money changes hands for the purpose of advertising politics, it's illegal. If no money changes hands, it's not. That levels the playing field so those with more money cannot get more exposure, and those with no money can get none.
Must not be simple, because I don't understand how this would work. Can the New York Times run a political op-ed? They pay different corporations for ink and paper, and to buy and maintain their presses. They pay a separate company to distribute the paper. Lot of money changing hands there.
Can Bezos buy the Washington Post and have it print his political views, or not?
Can I have a political channel on YouTube, or not? Does it matter whether I monetize?
Can I start a "think tank" and pay a "Fellow of th
Re: (Score:3)
People acting as a group have no rights. We have to take those rights to maintain rights for people acting alone.
Poe's Law in full effect here. But taking this as written, the First Amendment clearly says otherwise:
Congress shall make no law respecting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There's just no basis in the Constitution to argue that your rights as an individual are diminished when acting on concert with other individuals with those same rights. Meanwhile, it's a staple of totalitarian regimes that a group of people advocating for change is an illegal disruption of public order.
If the two of us together pool our money to buy an ad, then that should be illegal and we should be put in prison. That is collusion and conspiracy. However, it's fine for either one of us to buy an ad.
What about conjoined twins?
The New York Times is a publicly traded corporation, so not just a group of
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of democracies get by just fine with laws that regulate who can pay to influence election campaigns, and they seem to be much better democracies because of it.
Campaigning in the last US election cost 6.4 billion USD, or around 41 USD per registered voter.
Campaigning in the last UK election cost a total of 39 million GBP (0.05 billion USD), or around 1.15 USD per registered voter.
Interesting example. The UK looks to me like a totalitarian dystopia where a reporter espousing the wrong view gets dragged off the street, tried in secret, [wikipedia.org] and convicted an imprisoned within 24 hours, then a gag order placed on the rest of the British media to prevent them from protesting or even mentioning the event. That's 2018 UK, though it reads like early 16th century UK, right down to the subject matter of criticizing the wrong religion.*
Is your view that the US system presented voters with a higher quality of information, allowing them to make a more informed choice as to their representatives and president? Do you feel that additional six billion dollars was well spent? Does the requirement for billion dollar campaigns not seriously undercut the fundamental principles of democracy?
I believe the US system makes its citizens more free, which i
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the major problem and your B&W description doesn't match reality. People have complained about the targeting practices and the more developed the methods become (and information about them get widely spread) the more there are to criticize.
Most complaints now is from the realization of how easy the existing systems can be abused by a third party (mostly claimed to be Russia) combined with the ease another third party (Cambridge Analytica) could gain access to user data even if it was through
Re: (Score:2)
Micro-targeting of voters was used by Obama against Hillary. But when Trump does it, suddenly Facebook has overstepped.
Yes because he got Russia to meddle in a US election, you dumb-ass. We're allowed to meddle in our own elections, that's just campaigning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's scumbags like you who are ruining this country.
No, it's not the vocal scumbags who ruin the country, it's all of those who can't be bothered to stand up to the scumbags.
"Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."
-- John Stuart Mill
Re: (Score:2)
Micro-targeting of voters was used by Obama against Hillary. But when Putin does it, suddenly Facebook has overstepped.
Fixed that for ya
Re: (Score:1)
Almost every modern campaign that is able to target voters does target voters, Campaigns have limited resources and want to use them in the most efficient way possible. Also they do not want to energize those that will find a particular message to be negative. The whole narrative in this area is very negative. Carefully controlling free speech to insure the elites interests are honored is the opposite of democracy. The problem with Facebook is that it collects huge amounts of information which can be used f
No he didn't. You're either dumb or a Nazi... (Score:3)
At this point in time you no longer get to say that you're simply ignorant.
You are either too stupid to understand written text on a page or screen, or spoken language in a video... [slashdot.org]
OR... You are so ideologically bent on supporting Nazis - which makes you a Nazi. [slashdot.org]
Or both... that's a highly probable possibility as well. Nazis ARE immensely retarded, out of sheer necessity of their ideology.
Oh... and one more thing... just to underline your utter retardation...
Micro-targeting of voters was used by Obama against Hillary.
Really? In 2008? Do you even calendar, boy?
Facebook
Re: (Score:1)
Delete Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're not on FB,right? (Score:1)
To put it another way: You deleted your FB.
Is that the case?
Re:So you're not on FB,right? (Score:5, Insightful)
To put it another way: You deleted your FB. Is that the case?
I've never had a fb account, never will.
I'm not the OP, but your question implied that nobody could be without fb. I love not being on it. FB is "the mosh pit", full of people who absolutely need others to constantly acknowledge them... and it's gross and pathetic.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Straw man.
That's nice. They're tracking you anyway, via all those obliquitous "like" and "share" buttons, and scanning your face in every third party picture that's been uploaded to their servers.
Re: (Score:2)
They're tracking you anyway, via all those obliquitous "like" and "share" buttons
Not me. I've got my browser loaded with blockers and filters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To put it another way: You deleted your FB.
Is that the case?
Gave it up years ago and never looked back. I have teenage kids who also don't use it, it's all Snapchat and Instagram these days.
Coverage of Cambridge Analytica vs PRISM (Score:1, Troll)
Re: Coverage of Cambridge Analytica vs PRISM (Score:3)
What's so amazing about it? PRISM didn't feel like a personal violation, just an overreach of authority. Cambridge felt like a violation of personal space.
Also PRISM didn't have wide spread abuse of said data. All the targets were considered "bad". But with Cambridge, it gave a stark example that people could relate to directly.
Finally PRISM was written off as benign "metadata". That didn't scare people. But with Cambridge+Facebook+Personal Data in one sentence, people got a concrete idea just what was us
democracy was broke years ago (Score:1, Troll)
Zuckerberg Grilled (Score:5, Funny)
Zuckerberg Grilled At Angry Facebook Shareholder's Meeting
Oh, metaphorically grilled. Had my hopes up there for a minute. How disappointing.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe Elon could have provided flame throwers for the occasion?
Re: (Score:2)
Shit, I came here to say the same thing.
Wut? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
That's not a factual description of the situation.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, Stallman was right - always has been. But most people have a hard time taking people who eat their own toejam in public [youtube.com] seriously.
Re: (Score:1)
What so now you tell me painting with blood and fucking little kids is weird? Now you tell me!
Sincerely,
The Aristocracy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean seriously it's a sad reflection on society when 100 millions of people just give everything to an unaccountable company and then cry about it later.
Many of those "crying about it" never signed up for Facebook in the first place...yet Facebook keeps data on them anyway.
I guess the whole article is summarized with (Score:2)
"Facebook said that just because the proposals were blocked, that didn't mean the company doesn't care about these issues."
They care very deeply, because of the potential loss of revenue if they can't continue to harvest their "customers" data like the Japanese harvest whales.
Now? For the First Time?!?? (Score:2)
Facebook has posted guidelines on content moderation, now, for the first time? That kind of incompetence borders on being liable. Why have there not ALWAYS been formal guidelines?
Re: (Score:1)
And Facebook keeps making buckets of money, How?
Don't get me wrong. I'm on Facebook, but my exposure to Facebook advertising in minimal, since only see individual posts which are the result of notifications. I literally never look at the newsfeed, nor visit much beyond my own pics. I am what Facebook must consider a bad user.
However I'm smart enough to know that Facebook is in business to make money and they aren't going to do anything that will disrupt that revenue stream, unless forced by law.
So I don't e
What a strange world (Score:4, Insightful)
Investors in a datamining company complaining about datamining. Sounds like those shareholders of Shell who were complaining about climate change.
I can't wait for the logical extension:
Shareholders of Smith and Weston complaining that people die due to bullets.
Shareholders of Ratheyon complaining that their products explode.
Shareholders of VW complaining that customers are able drive somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh. I'll bet better than even odds that a significant number of these "shareholders" specifically bought Facebook shares in order to make these complaints. This is not all that new in political activism, pretending to be an actual investor in a publicly traded company, when these people couldn't care less about how well their "investment" does financially.
Headline isn't literal (Score:2)
So, what they're saying is ... (Score:2)
A plane zipped overhead pulling a banner that read "YOU BROKE DEMOCRACY" and advertising Freedom From Facebook, ...
They don't understand how a corporation works or voluntary use of its free services work.
Pro Tip: You don't have to have a Facebook account and/or use their free services -- or, I'll add, own their stock..
They helped him hurt us (Score:2)
They invested in Facebook without knowing where the money was going, or what it was doing. Some of them knew precisely what he was spending the money on (spying on people) and invested anyway. Now they want to cry about how they've been used, and blame it all on Zuckerfuck. But that's not how it works. They willfully contributed to evil, and now they're angry at Facebook for their being evil? Waaaaaaaaaa
I see where he went wrong (Score:2)
Zuckerberg Grilled At Angry Facebook Shareholder's Meeting
He should have held a Happy Facebook Shareholder's Meeting. That would have been so much better.
Re: (Score:2)
He should have held a Happy Facebook Shareholder's Meeting. That would have been so much better.
Does Facebook have shareholders that are happy right now?
Interesting... (Score:2)
Personally I would have enjoyed Clinton in the White House again. Not that Clinton, the other
That is the problem with the stock market (Score:1)
This is actually good ... (Score:2)
... because it puts the target squarely on Zucky's back.
The shareholders are trying to do the right thing (for themselves).
Outside agitators are working it.
Internal staff and employees are making statements and taking action.
Zuckerberg controls the company through special stock that gives him more votes than other shareholders.
"Facebook said that just because the proposals were blocked, that didn't mean the company doesn't care about these issues."