This event was just embarrassing for the senators, showing how little they know about technology...

direct hit from the cruz missile
youtube.com/watch?v=iwvFD_A5QeQ&t=66s

Ted Cruz is a fucking monkey. I bet he came into this thinking OH YA IM GONNA FUCKING FORCE HIM TO ADMIT HES A POLITICAL ENTITY AND SHUT DOWN FACEBOOK.

Attached: zucc.webm (720x810, 312K)

that was stupid

fucking soulless kikes...
I wish they all died in 1942....

Source?

>hate speech, terrorism,...... n-nudity
kek

>These people that have no idea how to use a computer and how Facebook even works will be creating your privacy laws.

better than zuck violating my privacy and breaking laws

LIL zucky booster seats!

Attached: F66sNdl.jpg (900x1200, 97K)

once fb goes under zuck could sell booster seats

Attached: Masquerade_attendee_dressed_as_"Mister_Skygack,_from_Mars"_(1912).jpg (320x947, 80K)

Attached: fuk zuk.jpg (487x458, 55K)

>don't knwo shit about anything
>just blame USSR and call it a day
this is why MURRICA is done

Attached: 1422461848469.jpg (744x558, 65K)

It's the staff and lobbyists that draft laws, not the congressmen themselves.

He has the most punchable face I've ever seen. It's infuriating.

I also wish to punch aliens.

that's hate speech

As a country worth living in, whose government actually cares? Yes.
As the worlds modern Rome with none of the long-reaching infrastructure issues? No.
It's gunna take something real fucky for a quarter of the worlds GDP and biggest military industrial complex to collapse. This is just further concentration of powers.

>what is facebook lobbying
Most of the senators "grilling" Zucc still received campaign contributions from Facebook. You think they aren't going to do everything in their power to influence future regulations?

yeah i wondered that too

He was referring to shit like dildo and faggot related ads popping up.

When they designed his head, why did they connect the cheek muscles to the ears?

Attached: a.jpg (194x352, 13K)

damn i gotta watch the rest of this

What was the point of this hearing? The politicians can't ask any real questions when zuck already knows what they masturbate to.

How would this have gone if Zuck was testifying in front of Jow Forums?

The zucc would be cornered into a statement saying that traps aren't gay.

There are idiots out there thinking cruz is fighting the good fight...

You know what keeps me up at night? The fact that foreign agents were promoting obama in 08 and 12 on facebook and no committees went into action against zuckerberg then. It is a strange scary world out there.

happens when you fake a smile

>political speech which is your first amendment right
sure, cruz wants to shut it down

but honestly zucc should have just responded that they take down 'extemist content' when pressed about censorship of conservashits

why can't he response his platform is neutral or not

Attached: aaayyy.jpg (800x793, 37K)

Wtf is a neutral public forum? Where does the law say anything about providers of "interactive computer services" needing to be politically impartial? Where does the law say anything about who can and can't be denied service and why?
Section 230 gives blanket immunity to content intermediaries. You can manipulate the hell out news feeds or something like Reddit to promote sponsored content or ads and there's no law demanding equal time based on politics. If that wasn't true, then Reddit would be breaking the law by manipulating their algorithms to block the_donald from manipulating the platform.

Why the fuck didn't he follow up with a question like this:

"Do you have the technical or algorithmic capability of determining the political-leaning of most or all of your 20000 content curator you've hired?"

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people don't give a shit about the facebook controversy. The few people who still use it regularly don't slow down, the rest don't use it enough (if at all) to care.

There's nothing wrong with being biased, but to pick and choose how you enforce your rules is bullshit. When talking about forming a lynch mob for Trump is A-OK, but posting the exact same post, only changing the name from Trump to Elizabeth Warren, gets you censored, then you're not enforcing your rules fairly.

They can make up whatever rules they want, in my opinion, but they can't selectively apply them.

I was prepared to laugh at Zucc, but now I just feel sorry for him. Having to hear nonsensical bullshit for 4 hours by people who said things like "email through whastsapp" or "how many data categories do you store?"

Attached: 1500645861438.jpg (1280x720, 122K)

Are you surprised that Congress is made up of a bunch of illiterates just looking to posture for a paycheck? They're law-makers that make less than good lawyers (unless they are corrupt). Anybody worth a shit sticks in the private sector, because that's where the money is.

being a Republican politician is extremely profitable, you've never heard of campaign finance?

>literally censors anything supporting right wing views and blatantly promotes the left wing
>nobody gives a shit
>some literal who business was using facebook data to target pro-right wing ads like
>NUH UH

Is this the most manufactured "outrage" ever?

Most of that goes into campaigning. If it doesn't, then they are corrupt. Also, I was thinking of Diane Feinstein when I was thinking of corruption. Lady is filthy rich despite working in the public sector her whole life.

Obama did the same thing, and nobody gave a shit. It's because MAYBE it helped Trump get elected. Shit like this isn't going to stop so long as he's in the White House.

The good news is that people who are dumb enough to watch the news and get outraged over it are all nearing death. News corporations know this, and have been trying their best to kill "new media."

>These people that have no idea how to use a computer and how Facebook even works will be creating your privacy laws.
Good, maybe then they'll favor the consumer.

If he said his platform was neutral, he'd be caught in a lie. If he said it wasn't neutral, then he'd expose himself to be a mass manipulator and a very toxic one at that. Both answers are a lose-lose for him, so he tries to dodge the question by answering another question instead. Cruz goes "ah-ah-ahh... I'm forcing your to answer this."

net newt was partially about the same issue and law (cda) - if you're a neutral, impartial "public" network service, then different laws apply than if you were a first amendment speaker and broadcaster with a package of offerings.
sites with user generated content like fourchan are subject to different regulations than a content service like Netflix.
is Facebook more like Jow Forums or is it more like Netflix?
if you have an edtorial slant and filter particular viwepoints, then you are not a neutral "intermediary", even if you are not the "source" or "author" and you don't get immunity (eg druge report republishes under a particular editorial slant, no immunity)

no immunity means potential liability for eg copyright infringement, doxxing, data/privacy leaks, libel, slander, fake news, cyber bullying, revenge porn, threats of violence and extremeist content, and obscenity for exposing gore or pornographic content to minors.

if Facebook is not neutral, then it could face criminal liability for aiding russian interference in our elections

>but they can't selectively apply them
Says who? You and Cruz? He who makes the rules can just as easily bend them and it's up to people to hold any system accountable, including the government. Democracies don't work if the people aren't involved.
If a business tells people that they're fair and balanced when they're biased, then everyone who patronizes that business because of it's claims is complicit in deceiving themselves.
The law hasn't caught up to internet speech and it may never want to. Things weren't fair before the internet. News papers controlled what people heard and the bias was so bad that political candidates made their own pamphlets and news papers. The great thing about the web is that you can go make your own website at vastly less cost than what printing presses cost.
I sincerely doubt that the law can come up with a real definition of 'editorial slant' that wouldn't destroy content management systems. Between the removal of algorithms and the absence of human curators, I think you'd end up with a wall of spammed, low quality, repeating content trying to drown everyone else out.

Again, they don't have to be neutral. But they can't selectively enforce their ToS. You don't get to allow someone to type, "Trump is a baby killer," while censoring someone for posting, "Planned Parenthood is made up of baby killers," under their current rules. Now, if they want to redefine their rules, that's fine. But they don't get to claim to be neutral while allowing offensive speech from one political side to stay up, and censoring offensive speech of the same nature from the other side.

You can be biased, but you can't claim to be neutral while doing so. At least, that's how I feel about it as a libertarian.

If you're gonna claim to be neutral while not being so, you open yourself up to lawsuits for violating your own ToS. It is entirely fair for the law to force the company follow the very ToS that they wrote. After all, it's a contract between the users and the company.

The smartest thing a social media company could do is say, "Outside of the law, we aren't gonna censor shit. Wanna make posts sexualizing little girls in swimsuits? Not our business. If the owners don't like it, they can block you. But if you POST underaged CP, that's against the law and we will censor you."

By going above and beyond what the law requires, a social media company is inevitably going to eat shit down the road, just like facebook and twitter have been doing for a while.

>implying kike zuckemberg is not the cover for a jewish project to collect data from people and he knows anything about programming
>implying what facebook has been doing for years about collecting data is legal
>implying if USA wasn't run by jews he wouldn't be in jail

Attached: 1493507933340.jpg (1232x960, 530K)

>0:15
the face of a defeated jew lying. i always thought lying in front of a congressmen hearing is your passport to at least 3 years in jail

Literally this. Between those tech illiterate senators and leddit leftists turning on him, I'm really starting to feel for the guy.

Anything leddit hates doesn't deserve that level of outrage.

I don't feel sorry for him at all. This is a dude who has repeatedly lied in the past. Every single problem facebook has faced in the past inevitably ended up with Zuckerberg saying the equivalent of: "Sorry. I fucked up. We're going to change things, and do better." Which wouldn't be a problem, except that once he said that, things would calm down and then he wouldn't change anything. I can think of at least 3 times he's done this just off the top of my head.

A quick search shows that I'm not the only one who has caught on to this:
forbes.com/sites/prudygourguechon/2018/04/09/the-psychology-of-apologies-is-mark-zuckerberg-getting-it-right/#300b2a1d31f2

...

>uhh i like him cuz my opposition hates him
Absolute state of amerimutts

The US was founded by jews (Christians) dumbass

>Protestant shitheads and freemasons
>Christians
european education

The "modern Rome" was the British Empire. The American Empire is some weird soft-power shit that people in a few centuries will wonder what the point of it was.

Zucced

Attached: 7VZW3hX - Imgur-VideoToMp4.webm (720x406, 1.31M)

>He hates being in the public
>This happens.
Good. Hypocrite deserves it.

why do western still buy tabloids?

>trusting a jew
>ever
i.4cdn.org/wsg/1522719703119.webm

Why is anyone surprised about this? We've known this since 2013. Why any threads at all?

Attached: PRISM-dates-began.jpg (700x525, 214K)

>A company we created ourselves
>We start collecting only many years later
sure

what makes you think they're taking pictures for tabloids

I haven't seen a single shot that close on the internet
They are being printed for tomorrow's american and UK tabloids like The Sun and New York Times

They will go anywhere that is willing to pay for the pics. That's what free lance photographers do.

c'mon now

is that some rabbi yosef mizrachi?

the jew did nothing wrong. it is absolutely not his problem that dumb fucks post every insignificant thing about their lives on his platform, nor is it his problem that people don't know how to use the magic internet box and change the default privacy settings that are not hidden or obfuscated at all.

Senator Dick Durbin (DD): "Would you be comfortable sharing with us the name of the hotel you stayed in last night?"

MZ: "Um, uh, no."

DD: "If you messaged anybody this week, would you share with us the names of the people you've messaged?"

MZ:: "Senator, no, I would probably not choose to do that publicly here."

DD: "I think that may be what this is all about: your right to privacy, the limits of your right to privacy, and how much you give away in modern America in the name of 'connecting people around the world.'"

Attached: GOYED.jpg (710x473, 76K)

Honestly, while he makes a good point for the retards that do zero research into what they use, it has nothing to do with the real problem plaguing twitter and facebook.

I believe in a private companies right to do whatever the fuck they want with their platform. However, when your platform/s control absolutely massive segments of public information, opinion and debate, to a degree literally never seen before, someone needs to lay down some fucking rules. This shit is unacceptable, but instead we get baby boomer retards who can't even use a computer making laws.

American leftists have that effect. It was a major contributing factor to Trump's win in fact

When I come to power I will gas every paparazzi, no one deserves that shit, not even that cunt Zuckerberg.

>The dude that freaks out whenever someone tries to film him, even as he scoops up whatever info he can from you to sell to the highest bidder, even if you don't have an account with his website, doesn't deserve this.

Yeah, no, he totally deserves this. We have to go to extraordinary lengths to avoid a shadow profile being built against us. He totally deserves this shit.

He doesn't really look like he cares too much. I'd just sit there casually and let them take their pictures too. It's not like it's scandalous, it's just pics of a Zuc sitting at a table.

world would be a great place if so

How can you tell? You can't see his face.

Body language and that casual look to the left. It doesn't really look like he's particularly anxious or anything.

He's literally sitting on a booster seat. If you were so worried about being seen as a manlet that you were sitting on a booster seat, wouldn't you be sweating just a little that these fucks might catch that on video?

He's sitting perfectly still, and his face isn't moving at all. I'm not saying he's definitively freaking out, but if I had to bet, based on how he reacts whenever anyone approaches him with a camera, as well as the booster seat, I'd be willing to bet money he's freaking out.

Attached: booster.jpg (900x1200, 178K)

anxiety doesn't really show in the face.

How about you stop being a fag, and stop using facebook? Not hard.

B O O S T E R

S

E

A

T

By that argument, you can throw out the "casual look to his left." And if it shows in the body, he's sitting stiff as a board, and not even leaning into the back of the chair. It's like when a dog completely locks up because you put a sweater on it for the first time or something.

user, you're doing that now?
This shit is infested with them, everyone know Jow Forumsfags only go in threads about any form of drama. They would never go in a thread with the real Jow Forums shit.

if you're anxious you don't (and really can't) sit perfectly still for 4 fucking hours. you fidget; bouncing your leg, wringing your hands, shifting in your seat, pursing or buttoning your lips, etc. there are other things like eye contact and generally trying to make yourself small to hide, but the stillness means he is fine or benz'd out.

God shut the fuck up, you don't know anything.

Lmao the left/right dichotomy in America is out of fucking control m8, clearly YOU don't know anything.

I agree, but that's due to one side constantly demonizing the other. Censoring right-wing posts that mirror left wing posts on facebook? It's their buisiness, totally fine. Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? They need to be taken to court and sued and forced to bake the cake before shuttering their doors forever!

I'm not even political, but I've only ever seen one side sling mud to appear morally superior. Makes sense that Trump happened in that context. You want to shit on everyone who doesn't both share and celebrate your beliefs? Eventually, they are gonna respond by saying, "You want a monster, you've got one!" Enter Trump. How much did they try to shit on him for being morally bankrupt (which he absolutely is, without question)? You couldn't go 10 minutes on any news network without seeing them taking a massive dump on how he's sexist, islamaphobic, the next Hitler, etc, etc. And he still won anyways.

Listen carefully to what I am about to say, I will not repeat it. America is fucked at this point in history, it's Babylon resurrected, just as the founding father freemasons praised King Solomon and all the gold/riches written of(really what Freemasonry is about) in signing in the New America, so also the fate of King Solomon in their stupidity, Capitalism. Behind these to be touchy touchy meetings for us to argue over, something always present before internet and now, in construct on the lower & middle as they engrave ------------- at evening they don't care about you, you're family, children, or your little cute cat that shits in high dollar sand. The more you focus on fearing big money and politics of men to fix everything, is just more confusion as was today. It was actually just another fucking meme of a casino questioning how can we get into his pockets deeper, with some accusation into he will comply of. Thats is it, Mark knew of it before he sat down. Just another meme that will be burned up.

>Capitalism
>politics of men to fix everything
Those are two different beliefs. Also, what other politics are there? The politics of cats?