Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook The Media

As Sacha Baron Cohen Criticizes Zuckerberg, Elon Musk Tweets "#DeleteFacebook' (techcrunch.com) 165

It all began when Sacha Baron Cohen shared a picture of Mark Zuckerberg as a Roman Emperor along with some scathing commentary, reports TechCrunch: He tweeted in frustration, "We don't let 1 person control the water for 2.5 billion people. We don't let 1 person control electricity for 2.5 billion people. Why do we let 1 man control the information seen by 2.5 billion people? Facebook needs to be regulated by governments, not ruled by an emperor!

Soon after, Tesla founder Elon Musk responded to the morning diatribe, himself tweeting "#DeleteFacebook it's lame."

Musk's response received 55,400 "Likes", as well as 6,700 retweets and another 1,200 follow-up comments.

Musk also tweeted a photo from inside a massive SpaceX hangar at Boca Chica, announced that small satellite operators using SpaceX "can now book their ride to orbit online," reported that his mother has published a book of life advice, and shared a tweet making fun of WhatsApp.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

As Sacha Baron Cohen Criticizes Zuckerberg, Elon Musk Tweets "#DeleteFacebook'

Comments Filter:
  • by saloomy ( 2817221 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @01:43AM (#59709550)
    Thanks to free markets, you have other sources available, everywhere. SBC's analogy is stupid. You only have one real source of home power, or water, generally (solar not withstanding).
    • by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @02:18AM (#59709608) Journal

      Really, it's just a another poorly closeted call for censorship.

      • I really don't understand anyone's call for censorship of any kind. People don't get that government does everything it does through coercion, even when you agree with it. You do not have the option to NOT agree with it. Just imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. This is like the fools who demand that the French government ban burkas. Sure. Sounds great. Until they ban crosses because some ass-hat in a priests uniform decides to shoot up some porn studio.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          This argument assumes that the government is some external, uncontrollable force. It's not, at least not in functional democracies where the government represents the people and is restrained by a constitution and multiple branches and a judiciary.

          If you don't understand why there is censorship of any kind then try thinking about things like state secrets that could compromise your security, such as the location of nuclear armed submarines. Think about if access to photos of criminal acts is a worthwhile "f

          • This argument assumes that the government is some external, uncontrollable force. It's not, at least not in functional democracies where the government represents the people and is restrained by a constitution and multiple branches and a judiciary.

            You realize that there are a great many things that enjoy broad popular support yet the government never acts on. So much so that it's been shown that rather than a functioning democracy we have an oligarchy with a really good 'Democracy' front. Citation: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs... [bbc.com] The cracks are beginning to show with Trump getting elected, that caught everyone so off guard they didn't even think to fix the election. Bernie is another symptom of this. With a bit of luck the establishment will fa

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          You do though really don't you. I mean, if a bunch of people were posting everywhere that you're a paedophile even if not true, got it posted in a public newspaper, and were declaring it all around your house with pickets, such that you lived under a constant barrage of abuse and assault by vigilantes, and no one was listening to your protestations to the contrary, I'm fairly certain you'd be calling for censorship of those untrue claims; that is, their removal.

          This is why there are slander and libel laws,

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        He's arguing that one person should not be able to censor and control the information seen by billions of people. He's calling for a more open platform with less arbitrary censorship.

        • Does he really think that Mark Zuckerberg sits around all day reading through Facebook and deciding what gets to be seen and what doesn't? Why does he (or you for that matter) make this flawed assumption that Facebook is one person instead of a collection of individuals and that the censorship will be carried out by faceless rank and file employees that are mostly uncaring and disinterested? Giving the government control is just substituting faceless bureaucrats for another set of drones.

          The real solutio
          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @08:20AM (#59710158) Homepage Journal

            Does he really think that Mark Zuckerberg sits around all day reading through Facebook and deciding what gets to be seen and what doesn't?

            Of course not, Zuck makes policy decisions that are then implemented by his staff.

            The real solution is to ensure that there's a vibrant set of competitors so that none can afford to be more censorious than their customers demand.

            All that does is create ghettos where people get trapped in their own little comfortable bubble. What we need is data portability and interoperability.

    • If people get most of their information from Facebook, it's a sign they just don't care.
    • by bjwest ( 14070 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @03:05AM (#59709680)

      You only have one real source of home power, or water, generally (solar not withstanding).

      Yes, and they're heavily regulated. If social media sites want to be a source of news, they need to be responsible and contain the blatant lies and disinformation, ether voluntarily or by regulations just as the advertising industry is.

      • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

        If you don't like FB, nobody's forcing you to be on it. I personally ignore all the political crap on it, and only talk with my (RL) friends/family. And since there scattered around the globe, there's no other platform that I'm aware of for me to keep in touch with ~200 people, and have them all join it.

        • There are dozens of alternative ways to keep in touch with 200 people around the globe aside from Facebook. What you really seem to mean is Facebook is the platform you all are already on.

          And that's exactly the problem. Your use of the platform is driving the network effects that undermine competition. You are the reason you can't find an alternative.

          More importantly, you - by being on the platform - are driving the platform's ability to spread disinformation.

          People who use Facebook are undermining democrac

      • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

        Yes, and they're heavily regulated. If social media sites want to be a source of news, they need to be responsible and contain the blatant lies and disinformation, ether voluntarily or by regulations just as the advertising industry is.

        Odd how you switched between definite and indefinite articles. Facebook is, at best, a source of news. They are neither the source for news nor anything close to a monopoly supplier of news.

        Good luck repealing the first amendment in your quest to use regulations to contain

    • Facebook is the worst form of social media. Except for all the other ones.

      -- Winston Churchill
    • The comparison is apt. You have only one water source? Well, there could be more, but it's not economic to open up a new water supplyer. It's similar with internet, your internet supply may be crappy and you could argue "hey, it's a free market, so if it sucks someone else will offer it". No. Nobody will. Because the initial cost is prohibitively high and it is not feasible to offer it to compete with someone else who already has all the initial cost down and only needs to maintain what they have.

      With socia

    • by Martin S. ( 98249 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @06:00AM (#59709924) Journal

      Capitalism is a tool to achieve our objects, not an objective in its own right.

      • False. Absolutely fucking false. Capitalism is just another word for "the freedom to own property, and to sell your labor at a price you see fit". There are, and always will be, reasonable, basic limits on capitalism but don't pretend it's "just one way", there is no other way that's compatible with basic human freedom.
    • by Tom ( 822 )

      you failed economics 101, didn't you?

      Natural monopolies are a thing, and social networks are similar. Once one competitor is dominant, you can't go to someone else without losing the "social network" aspect, because nobody is there. There is considerable lock-in and switching costs, but the main is that unless all or most of your friends switch with you at roughly the same time, you can't leave Facebook without losing that network. Even those who hate Facebook and primarily use something else have a seconda

      • Have to keep a FB account? Nope. Don't have to. That's ridiculous.

        There is no one in the world important enough to stay in contact with who isn't willing to provide their phone number or email.

    • generally like SBC (he's generally likable) and do not like Zuck (he's generally unlikable) but this is a really dumb thing to put out there. Should the government take over snapchat? what about Match? Why not just let the government control even more of the internet? They do a great job with everything. Assume this was a tongue in cheek thing, but the punchline is lost on me.

    • Yes, a fact born out literally by the fact that you can easily #deletefacebook. I don't see many people calling to #deletewater or #deletepower when they get pissed off at their utilities provider because, obviously, you can't by any stretch reasonably do without those things. Facebook is just some dumb bullshit you are free to use or not use.
  • by arbiter1 ( 1204146 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @01:56AM (#59709582)
    "Facebook needs to be regulated by governments, not ruled by an emperor!" What about a gov like China for example? Saying something should be gov regulated doesn't mean its gonna be better and ultimately could be far worse as China is a prime example of this.
    • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @02:22AM (#59709620)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • by novakyu ( 636495 )

        One way to regulate something is when the size gets big enough you add more rules, such as taking down inaccurate information that pretends to be accurate information.

        This being Facebook, I fear the intent of this would be misinterpreted to mean that I must share my real name and identifying info—NOTHANKYOUVERYMUCH.

        Let the Facebook become the ghetto of the Internet-world. Let it become where the filth gather; don't try to "fix" it.

      • by rho ( 6063 )

        One way to regulate something is when the size gets big enough you add more rules, such as taking down inaccurate information that pretends to be accurate information. The size where you start applying these rules can vary, but there is no doubt that Facebook would qualify.

        Facebook would be fine with this. Because Facebook is large enough to absorb the costs of complying with these rules.

        Regulatory capture is a thing. Sasha Baron Cohen is basically saying "let's put so many rules in place for social media that only Facebook can follow them. Oh, and let's make sure that Facebook has hundreds of lobbyists in Congress ensuring their market dominance until the heat death of the Universe." Though, to be fair, Sasha Baron Cohen probably doesn't realize that's what he's saying.

      • One way to regulate something is when the size gets big enough you add more rules, such as taking down inaccurate information that pretends to be accurate information.

        Like Russian collusion? Now that it's been positively proven to be a hoax, shall we purge all posts about it, and should the media be forced to issue retractions?

        How about the claims it was a "lie" when President Trump claimed he was being spied upon during his candidacy. It's been proven to be true (FISA court warrants - which were also based on lies), shall we demand all posts stating the President lied about that to be purged, and anyone who stated otherwise must issue a formal apology?

    • China already regulates everything in their country, so if you want to know what it would be like, look and see what there is today.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Why not China? If they want to set the rules for Facebook to operate under in China then they can. Of course it only applies in China.

      Where it becomes a problem is when countries like the US try to enforce their laws globally.

    • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      apples v. oranges. Different form of govt.

    • by nagora ( 177841 )

      "Facebook needs to be regulated by governments, not ruled by an emperor!" What about a gov like China for example? Saying something should be gov regulated doesn't mean its gonna be better and ultimately could be far worse as China is a prime example of this.

      Well, make sure your government isn't like the Chinese one, then.

  • by g01d4 ( 888748 )
    The guy's a comedian. Facebook != utility. Zuckerberg controls information given to him in exchange for a free service. I don't use Facebook and he likely knows a shit-ton less about me than say Google. And what Google thinks it knows about me is likely a pile of meaningless and/or useless shit - if it's close that what Netflix or Amazon thinks it knows. At least for now...
    • The guy's a comedian.

      That's debatable,

    • The guy's a comedian.

      The topic spans multiple domains, and it's unlikely any one individual has perfect insight into the matter. I'm curious what your qualifications are, since you're refuting his claim with certainty.

  • We need water for survival. The same can be said about electricity unless you want to live like a hermit. The same cannot be said about the need for Facebook though.

  • Is a human necessity, Facebook isn't.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 10, 2020 @02:34AM (#59709638)

    He wants tech companies to censor people who makes the wrong jokes.

    https://www.google.dk/amp/s/re... [google.dk]

    https://www.spiked-online.com/... [spiked-online.com]

  • WTFS? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by p91paul ( 4513273 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @02:37AM (#59709642)
    Whoever wrote TFS has serious attention span issues. How did we get from Facebook to Musk's mother?
    • by novakyu ( 636495 )

      I see no span tags that seem problematic. Waddya mean "span issues"?

    • Re:WTFS? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Rei ( 128717 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @06:31AM (#59709974) Homepage

      I'm a fan of Musk's work, and even I shook my head at that. What does it matter that Musk Tweeted #DeleteFacebook (which he's done before), and why the segue into other Musk-related topics?

      Also, it was such a cursory summary regardless. E.g. the thing about small satellite launches isn't that they can "book online"; it's that there's going to be regularly scheduled rideshare launches that launch regardless of who's onboard. Small, low budget satellites often launch on small dedicated launchers (that are often rather pricey per kg) because if you want to rideshare, you're fully subject to the whims of the primary payload. If it's delayed, you're delayed. If it's cancelled, you're cancelled. Etc. With dedicated low-cost rideshare missions, there is no "primary payload"; it launches regardless of who signs on and who cancels.

      (It's mainly a shot being fired in the direction of one company: Rocketlab ($5,7M per launch (max 150kg) vs $1M (max 450kg)). There still will be payloads that want their own rocket, absolutely (for a wide range of reasons) - but it's a threat to the majority of their launch business, and is clearly targeted primarily at them)

  • and is therefore irrelevant.

    • If you are posting on Twitter, you should be posting about how Twitter enables fascism, not about Facebook, which isn't even the platform you are patronizing.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @06:13AM (#59709954) Homepage Journal

        Musk should be posting about how he is shutting down Tesla's surveillance network that spies on every Tesla owner, recording their movements and habits and even capturing video of their activities.

        Ever notice how when someone complains about a fault with a Tesla car the response is always "we looked at the data from when you claim this happened"? Everything is logged in a Tesla - GPS, driver inputs, what you are listening to on the stereo, everything.

        • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @06:41AM (#59709986) Homepage

          Musk should be posting about how he is shutting down Tesla's surveillance network that spies on every Tesla owner, recording their movements and habits and even capturing video of their activities.

          And where do the Lizards come into this?

          Yes, the car has a "black box" that records CAN bus data. This is a good thing. No, stereo is not logged. No, the car does not record internal video (despite owners requesting this). It records external video - which you have to provide a USB keystick for, and is not transmitted (despite owners requesting this feature for quite a while) - if you log it via sentry mode or save a playback (playback is automatically saved in the event of an accident). This is - again - a good thing, and very desired by owners. Just like owners being able to check out the position of their car via their app when they're not in it.

          But if you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist? Fine, disable the sim card and lose the functionality. The car does not require a net connection to function.

          • by Rei ( 128717 )

            (For the record, my cell phone is far more intrusive. Every photo I take, no matter how personal, is automatically uploaded to Google. It reads my emails, looking for keywords for things to market to me. My GPS position (which Google uses for things like traffic modeling) is transmitted to Google even when I'm walking. My phone knows my bloody fingerprints, for crying out loud!)

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            These claims are undermined by Tesla's own statements. For example they claim to have collected billions of miles of self-driving data. If that is the case they must have things like images from the external cameras and detailed data on the car's location, the driver's inputs and more.

            In the past they have also produced data about the owner's use of things like the air conditioning.

            Their own privacy policy confirms it in fact: https://www.tesla.com/sites/de... [tesla.com]

            Note how it specifically mentions they collect d

            • by Rei ( 128717 )

              These claims are undermined by Tesla's own statements. For example they claim to have collected billions of miles of self-driving data. If that is the case they must have things like images from the external cameras and detailed data on the car's location, the driver's inputs and more.

              AP data collection: there are two main types of data collection for AP: user triggered, and trigger-triggered. You can opt-out entirely of AP data collection if you choose. Virtually nobody does, because they're not paranoid

              • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                From your link, which has substantially the same text as mine:

                "To improve our vehicles and services for you, we may collect certain telematics data regarding the performance, usage, operation, and condition of your Tesla vehicle, including: vehicle identification number; speed information; odometer readings; battery use management information; battery charging history; electrical system functions; software version information; infotainment system data; safety-related data and camera images (including inform

                • by Rei ( 128717 )

                  Literally everything you wrote above is followed by the text: "If you no longer wish us to collect telematics log data or any other data from your Tesla vehicle, please contact us as indicated in the “How to Contact Us” section below." So it's irrelevant if you're paranoid that Tesla is involved in some sort of conspiracy to spy on you, rather than to provide services that owners want.

                  And if you opt out your car might stop working

                  Wow, imagine that - if you tell Tesla you don't want data exchang

                  • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                    Wow, imagine that - if you tell Tesla you don't want data exchange, features involving data exchange (including remote diagnostics and updates, including updates for any serious issues) won't work. Someone, alert the press!

                    So your options are either (1) give us all the telematics or (2) we won't give you software updates.That's quite the Hobson's choice. It's impossible to provide software updates to a Tesla without gathering a continuous record of what a driver does? I don't think so.

                    • by Rei ( 128717 )

                      Can you people not follow a link and read it? There are two separate opt-out settings - total and "Data Sharing". AP data collection comes from the "Data Sharing" setting, which can be enabled and disabled at will under Controls - > Settings - > Data & Security. Opting out of everything else ("telematics log data or any other data") is done by calling Tesla, and is distinct from the "Data Sharing" setting ("with the exception of the Data Sharing setting detailed above").

                    • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                      Can you people not follow a link and read it? There are two separate opt-out settings - total and "Data Sharing". AP data collection comes from the "Data Sharing" setting, which can be enabled and disabled at will under Controls - > Settings - > Data & Security. Opting out of everything else ("telematics log data or any other data") is done by calling Tesla, and is distinct from the "Data Sharing" setting ("with the exception of the Data Sharing setting detailed above").

                      Why yes, we can. Let's see

          • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

            But if you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist? Fine, disable the sim card and lose the functionality. The car does not require a net connection to function.

            Hey Rei, while you're doing your routine Musk damage control, how about you answer the question that was asked on Friday [slashdot.org] concerning how you know that a used car dealer activated Tesla's autopoilot mode (and then Tesla subsequently disabled it).

            BTW: Know that would appear to require a net connection, since neither the dealer nor the seller have said anythi

            • by Rei ( 128717 )

              I don't understand your question. "That would appear to require a net connection" - all Teslas have a net connection. Is your theory that Teslas have no net connection until they're... what, resold by a used car dealer?

              • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                I don't understand your question

                My question concerns your inability to answer questions, so let me pull this all together for you.

                ED: Having learned more about this, it wasn't an "unsolicited goods" situation at all. The used car dealer, after buying the car without FSD, apparently enabled a demo of FSD, but then used that and the Monroney ticker to try to convince the buyer that the car comes with FSD :P It's outright fraud on the used car dealer's part.

                1st reply:
                Prior post 15 minutes ago said: "who bough

                • by Rei ( 128717 )

                  You wrote two replies to an old thread and are apparently mad that I don't spend my time monitoring old Slashdot threads to see your replies? Get a life, seriously.

                  And looking back at the thread, I see that someone already told you about AP trials [slashdot.org]. Multiple people [slashdot.org], actually. And fraud is buying a car that doesn't list something as being an option with the car, presenting it as coming with the car, and trying to convince the buyer that it's a glitch that it's not there when they come to pick it up and usi

                  • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                    You wrote two replies to an old thread and are apparently mad that I don't spend my time monitoring old Slashdot threads to see your replies? Get a life, seriously.

                    Say the person who appears on every Tesla- and Musk-related thread.

                    And looking back at the thread, I see that someone already told you about AP trials.

                    That' wasn't the question. You alleged that the used car dealer enabled a trial. How did they do that when Tesla pushes the trials at times of its own choosing? Why did Tesla remove the AP featu

    • I was going to say -- what's fundamentally different about Twitter?

      I love the way of interacting with friends and family that FB enables, particularly as my family is now spread all across the globe. About a year ago, though, I determined that the "good" I was doing by combating misinformation on FB was being overwhelmed by the bad I was doing by making FB an attractive place to be in the first place, and so I quit.

      But is Twitter any better?

      • Network effects. Twitter's network is one of dissemination from talking heads to the hoi polloi. It's largely unidirectional. Facebooks network is more complex, with smaller circles of known people. This makes Facebook a more critical tool for keeping in touch with people you know.

        Twitter is a traditional information model akin to the news.

        Facebook is like if a news corporation took over the telephone system and replaced all ring tones with news clips they have decided you need to hear.

  • You realize you can just NOT USE Facebook, do you?

    I quit about 2-3 years ago. I miss nothing.
    I've got real people I meet with now. And real news regarding those real people and places I physically am at.
    And I'm much happier ever since.

    Trumpet, Putain, Murkel, Ski-Ping Pong, Suckerburg, The Bezos from planet Bezos, the Gugelhupf they do nothing, Tim's Cock, Satyr "Micropenis" Nutella, ... it's all bullshit! I have never met anyone of them! IT'S NOT REAL to me!
    (I don't mean literally not real. You know what

  • by petes_PoV ( 912422 ) on Monday February 10, 2020 @04:24AM (#59709782)

    Why do we let 1 man control the information seen by 2.5 billion people?

    why do we let an actor tell 2.5 billion people what to think?

  • Shoddy latin. That's not how the imperative works.

    "Coniungo et impero."

    There, better. I think. I don't speak latin, but evidently neither does the person who made the image.

  • Brodsky famously said about Soviet pseudo-opposition poet Evtushenko: "If Evtushenko is against colkhozes (collectlvely owned farms), then I am pro- them".

    So am I: "If Cohen is against Zuckerberg, then I am pro-Zuckerberg".

    I do not want to be in the same camp or room with clowns of any political persuasion.

    You know when clowns were useful in political speech? When there was no free speech and a court idiot was the only one with a license to that.

    • "If Cohen is against Zuckerberg, then I am pro-Zuckerberg".

      The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend...

    • Why don't you like Simon Baron-Cohen?
      I know some people don't agree with his ideas but he's not a bad psychologist.
      Oh you mean Sacha, the actor.
      What do you not like about his ideas?
      Do you think he is a good actor?

      P.S. They are cousins.

  • Tesla founder Elon Musk responded to the morning diatribe, himself tweeting "#DeleteFacebook it's lame."

    Musk's response received 55,400 "Likes", as well as 6,700 retweets and another 1,200 follow-up comments.

    Internet users protest Internet service on Internet service. Internet service expected to continue despite crisis.

  • Seriously, he's using Twitter to bash on Facebook? As if posting "#DeleteFacebook" would ever do anything...

  • Musk's response received 55,400 "Likes", as well as 6,700 retweets and another 1,200 follow-up comments.

    Am I the only one whose irony meter pegged here?

    "Fight big social media! Like and retweet if you agree!"

  • I hope people actually do. It is a cancer.

  • If one man controls social media, then who is on twitter to see this protest? The cognitive dissonance is astounding. I haven't used facebook, so I don't see the appeal, but it also isn't the only game in town by the pure fact they posted this on TWITTER!

  • Peons stay out of their way. Note the other story I saw was Gates dropping a cool 1/2B Euros on a new boat.
  • ... I think he's trying to be Will Rogers?
    He's coming off more like Borat.

    Seriously, the logical failures required to utter such a statement (or the staggering narcissism that people are so stupid they'll disregard/fail to recognize them) are breathtaking.

  • A new social media platform should be welcome. How about an alternative Elon. Japan has Mixi which allowed aliases.

Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success. -- Christopher Lascl

Working...