I'm going to guess that it's because Facebook was the enabler. Without a Facebook, the "Cambridge Analytica's" of the world would not exist, because they wouldn't be able to buy data of this magnitude. You can throw the CEO of CA in jail, but someone else will just come along to fill his shoes.

So, I think the public gets much more satisfaction out of seeing the CEO of FB raked over the coals, because they think it will attack the problem more at the root. Just my guess anyway.

Surely the root is people's relationship with their online data, and the vast majority of the population being uninformed and uninterested in data security and privacy.

There was a recent post about how the internet was better before everyone was on it. I'm not sure I agreen, but the average ability of any internet user to think critically has certainly tanked since the advent of the smartphone.

This part caught my eye, I may have missed some details over the past few days so I'm sorry if I'm reading into it wrong:

>> Frenkel: We understood that Cambridge Analytica had reached out to Facebook and asked that its ban on the platform be reconsidered. Are you giving any thought to allowing Cambridge Analytica back in?

>> Zuckerberg: The first thing we need to do is conduct this full forensic audit of the firm, that they don’t have any people’s data from our community and that they’ve deleted anything, including derivative data, that they might have. We’re working with the regulator in the U.K. on this, so our forensic audit was actually paused in the near term to cede the way for the ICO there to do their own government investigation. We’re certainly not going to consider letting them back onto the platform until we have full confirmation that there’s no wrongdoing here.

So this part:

>>Zuckerberg: We’re working with the regulator in the U.K. on this, so our forensic audit was actually paused in the near term to cede the way for the ICO there to do their own government investigation.

"...our forensic audit was actually paused..."

It sounds like Facebook was already at CA before the investigation started trying to solve what ICO and other government bodies around the globe were going to be asking about / inquiring about / interested at looking into the legal ramifications of the material undergoing forensic audits.

I can't help but feel like Facebook is trying to say that they were trying to solve this problem on their lonesome and take care of the problems head on like they always should have, since the very first inkling of something like this happening.

That sounds nice and all but I can't say I believe it unless somebody else can tell me about why the timing of this is just so... precisely perplexing? I feel like I would have read at least one thing pointing me in an obvious direction that would make me better understand the way he answered that question in such a way.

Did CA asking for its ban to be lifted prompt the forensic audit? Did CA have new business to attend to with Facebook's help and needed to ensure before they underwent another dangerous operation as partners that CA had to be holding up their end of the bargain by destroying any evidence? Something sounds odd. There's no way CA wouldn't be the type of company to play both sides to earn as much money as possible in this endeavor, especially if it's illegal and can help such ridiculously wealthy and powerful people around the globe -- people seemingly willing to spend tens of millions of dollars to either plant their candidate in a designated spot, prevent incumbents from taking or threatening that / a certain spot, or for existing people in power to obtain data to help them further dig in and retain that power and wealth. It keeps coming to my mind that a company that uses blackmail and hookers to ensure it's customers successful results isn't going to be the type of company to play by the rules when it comes to earning profits. If they are getting away with their business as explained by Nix in the video we saw how are we supposed to assume that they ever act as good and noble actors in any other situation with potential for abuse that results in exorbitant profit? I know I am assuming things here but I digress.

That's all my mind can think about after reading this response. It sounds great on paper but knowing what I know and having felt the way I've always felt about Facebook and social media in general (I've been the type to warn family members about the truths of who the product is and why only to get eyes rolled at me) I don't think that this good Samaritan Q&A filled with promises of improvement and doing the very best to break through to the next technological horizon while doing the least amount of damage to anything around Facebook is like the folks who colonized America having to capture the entire land of what is now The United States without harming any Native American Indians. The story of Thanksgiving sounds nice, paying homage to Christopher Colombus also sounds nice and is a great way to get young kids into the spirit of American History but by the time we come of age and realize the truth to both of those stories we are left with a genocide that's brushed under the rug and a false hero / celebrity who is placed on a pedestal as high as Martin Luther King Jr yet did quite the opposite in every way. One man laid the way for genocide and the other led the way for peace and unity. Sorry for the random correlation / rationalization but I'm really hoping people never start championing Zuckerberg like Steve Jobs. He's way more of a villain in my eyes. Also, sorry if this post is in bad taste. I'm not trying to hurt anyone, only correlate how this situation factors into how I feel about it with some oddly fleshed out comparison.

The timing was perplexing, because Facebook's account of events just don't make sense. They were tackling this problem head on themselves, yet waited till just hours before the ICO shows up at CA's offices to "secure the evidence"? They were "working with" the ICO all along, and not ordered to stand down?

The whole thing of them showing up right before the ICO did, frantically carrying out their "forensic audit" reminds me of the Uber employee talking about how they had a system to instantly wipe all data in case foreign officials raided their offices. The more they try to sugar coat this, the more it reeks.

There are just too many weird little anecdotes about all of this. I'm not trying to bring politics into this but as if Facebook as a corporation isn't high enough up on the food chain as it is (in general as a company that makes lots of money, in terms of it's global use, in terms of it's global power, in terms of it's brand strength overall, in terms of it's use for gain by candidate being elected all the way up to the President of the USA) this story is being tied to Trump's campaign (I don't know to what end, yet, but it could be associated to Trump forcefully -- we'll see when we see) and Zuckerberg going missing for two days seems odd enough on its own.

For him to come back and give a Q&A that sweet and rosy just felt odd to me. The questions weren't total softballs. The questions weren't extremely hard hitting, either. The answers themselves are what bothers me. There is a total lack of empathy, total lack of ownership of the serious implications all of this has, and most importantly to me -- a serious lack of humanity behind the eyes and words of a man who runs a business that claims to bring the world together in a happy, constructive, and peaceful way -- meanwhile that company makes millions hand over fist while selling out those very people they claim they champion and uplift. Profiting off of their secrets and personal doings and sayings. It feels like one of the slimiest things I've ever had the misfortune to understand due to my tech background.

I'm going to bet Facebook is bigger and everyone uses it and CA is based in the UK and not in the US. Who the hell even knew Cambridge Analytica before any of this?

It's fun to hate big companies with recognizable names and blame that big company for electing someone that Americans are increasingly displeased with.

Preach it!

I'm surprised to see someone tell it for what it really is. This is just like the Uber "scandal" from last year in that things got blown way out of proportion in some aspects, but positive changes were made.

In this case, people have, both publicly and privately, warned Facebook about this issue for years. At some point, after having been warned about the situation, inaction is in fact a conscious decision.