Worth noting that Zuck wants something from Xi and Medvedev, has everything he needs in terms of support from the US Gov.
Facebook as almost insured that it becomes the whipping post of the FAANG companies as the government wants to look hard on tech. Im genuninely not sure what Zuck can do as long as Apple, Google and Amazon don't make mistakes in the same way.
The next 10 years are going to be a lot like the old ad age about being chased out of a campsite by a bear. It's unimportant to be the fastest (best) of the group, you just cant be the slowest.
It seems that it worker out for Bill Gates pretty well.
I've said variations on this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16438362, but FB will get serious about it when users stop using it.
Until that time, everyone can complain, but the concept of "revealed preferences" is relevant. Do people actually care? If so, they'll change their behavior, FB will likely notice, and changes will happen.
People have been complaining about FB and privacy since practically day 0. Throughout that entire period, FB has only become more popular.
I get the feeling, but you'll agree that a legally binding legal procedure that is an actual existential threat to your hundred billion dollar company that employs 25k people requires a different approach then a seduction meeting with a despot to try to loosen regulations.
This strikes me as especially interesting. I mean, I'd personally theoretically have my reservations about this congress over and above the average congress, but FaceMark refusing strikes me as a deeply telling datum about how he's thinking about this.
This is not a deeply telling datum. It is a boring an standard one.
More accurately there is risk in talking to the US congress when the topic sounds more like an inquisition than when congress is asking for opinions.
The matter then is why is it a risk for Facebook to discuss the CA issue? Are they worried about a witch hunt or a public ethics execution?
> ...my reservations about this congress over and above the average congress...
ugh, come on. it's not like the whole congress votes on how you're to be treated, and the questions you'll be asked. the biggest heels on both sides of the aisle are free to harangue you all they want.
Not the whole Congress, but how exactly do you think procedure and parameters for hearings are set and objections during hearings are resolved? Both the specific personalities in leadership positions and the attitudes of the majority matter a lot.
EDIT: It's true that there is a tradition of providing some semblance of balance in committee process, including hearings, with the majority (not necessarily by party) mainly controlling what items are considered and what hearings are held, and ultimately the outcome; but not only is partisanship greater than in the past, but precisely those traditions have noticeably weakened over the last couple decades and particularly in the current Congress.
“First, we will investigate all apps that had access to large amounts of information before we changed our platform to dramatically reduce data access in 2014, and we will conduct a full audit of any app with suspicious activity. We will ban any developer from our platform that does not agree to a thorough audit. And if we find developers that misused personally identifiable information, we will ban them and tell everyone affected by those apps.“
Might be a too little, too late attempt at self regulation since they've apparently known about this cambridge analytica situation since before the election and since then there have been facebook employees embedded with CA to help them target ads.
MSNBC is already playing this as: 1) starts with a denial 2) admits wrongdoing 3) claims behavior will change 4) changes are not carried out and we're in the same place a year down the road.
They’re also pointing out that Zuck is fine meeting with Xi Jinping, meeting with Medvedev but refuses to appear before the US Congress and sends the company counsel instead.