A Senator straight up asked “Would you share the hotel you stayed at last night” … nope
I can’t wait for him to drop a bomb and see the stock price fall dramatically.
Also I totally agree about the “willful blindness” - I have seen thousands of obviously spammy/fraudulent accounts and I’ve reported hundreds of them with no result what so ever. If they don’t even bother to look at & take down obvious spam, I’m not surprised they let Cambridge Analytica slip through the cracks.
Holding his own but bit of grandstanding from the questioners. You may have only 2 minutes but that shouldn’t mean you stop him answering the question so you can ask another
Edit: they need PowerPoint. Holding up huge cards is just hilarious
Does he have to start every answer with “senator”? Now I’ve noticed it I’m getting irritated
That was a great line of questioning from that senator.
There’s a lot of pushing questions to be answered by his team. I hope these are followed up publicly.
These questions on bias are pointless. He won’t let him answer and how’s he supposed to know the political leanings if 15-20000 people in product review?? He’s the CEO, that’s not his job
I wonder how many people in the background are on Facebook
I think the senators are asking the wrong questions about the review team. They shouldn’t be asking about political bias in the review team (and personally I do not believe there is any bias there), they should be asking how those people are trained and accounted for. I believe the review people are low-wage employees working under awful conditions and as a result their decisions can be pretty much random. This I believe the incidents regarding conservative speech being “censored” were due to more people (or bots) reporting the content, thus eventually getting it deleted because the bored & disgruntled reviewers couldn’t care less and pressed the wrong button.
In fact I saw a lot of people on social networks (not just Facebook) that encourage others to flag an account or post they don’t agree with (despite being within the platform’s terms of service) to get it deleted, so this problem seems real and not news by any means.
Hard call deciding what is free speech and what is inciting hatred. No matter what decision you make people will be calling for your head. Those decisions will inevitably be in tightly written rules but still the final call is individual judgement. Nobody wants to make the wrong call and risk their job
Nobody wants to make the wrong call and rick their job
This is also why their job shouldn’t be on the line for a single mistake, nor should a single person be the judge between content being there or being deleted. They should run the content through a pool of people (ideally from different locations, as to eliminate any potential bias if people in the same office share the same ideologies) and the “average” score should be the one deciding whether a post stays or gets deleted.
How many reported posts or accounts do they get every day? In theory I totally agree but the implementation would be an absolute nightmare
That’s not our problem as far as the users are concerned. They’ve got billions in the bank, maybe it’s time to put them to good use?
Some machine learning could also be used to weed out the obvious bad content, but given that they can’t even get rid of obviously fraudulent accounts something tells me they don’t really care, which is how we ended up here today.
Oh he’s backtracking now. Looks like he got a bit of a scolding from his advisors behind the scenes.
I can’t really say I blame him though, he’s built a monster of a company that became alive and fell out of his control (due to selling out to investors & such). I don’t believe Zuck is a bad person by himself (nothing personal here), I just wish he foresaw this and kept Facebook to himself instead of selling out.
This senator sounds like he has a list of accounts the CA guy has opened since…
I would prefer if they instead published all data they had on Cambridge Analytica & people associated with them - give them some of their own medicine.
That was disappointing from the brilliantly named Mr Whitehouse. He set up a Columbo style reveal and didn’t carry it out. But his questions have been the most analytical so far
How can he support a law without knowing the exact wording? A law isn’t just a 20 words. It’s pages of clauses, subsections and provisions.
Grandstanding of the highest order to promote himself as the person protecting American’s rights
Your user agreement sucks.
Go back home and rewrite it.
Finally a no-bullshit senator. This guy has my respect.
But senator you already have the tools to do that