This question (like many others) was frustrating, because it was worded in such a way that was incredibly easy for Zuck to dodge. Of course FB isn't using your encrypted messages for ad purposes, because they can't. But messages sent from FB Messenger, not from WhatsApp, are unencrypted and so are likely used for ad purposes -- but of course the question wasn't worded in that way.

The way they scoped that question to WhatsApp and not Messenger seemed quite deliberate.

Of course it was deliberate. Him admitting they serve ads based on Messenger content means nothing, we already know that they do.

WhatsApp is sold as an E2E encrypted service, and an admission that WhatsApp message data (or even metadata) is somehow used for advertising as well would be a huge admission.

Maybe. But I believe the conversation at the time was about how FB tracks its users and what data it uses for advertising purposes, not about WhatsApp's encryption, or lack thereof. I meant deliberate in the sense that the question was worded in a way that made it easily dodge-able with a "no, we don't use your encrypted WhatsApp messages for advertising purposes", instead of "yes, we read the content of your FB messages for advertising purposes."

> Him admitting they serve ads based on Messenger content means nothing, we already know that they do.

I don't think that has been confirmed (source if so?), and I think that's what the question should have attempted to confirm.

Exactly, the point is Facebook at anytime can change the client to show ads, or send some of the text up for analysis. The point being the user is not in control. It's all based on trust. Do you trust Facebook won't do it? Do you trust Facebook won't be hacked and does it, etc.. some of the senators attempted to highlight that. One guy asked if Zuckerberg could few is stuff, and Zuckerberg had to admit that technically he could.

I suppose there is some value to Zuckerberg dodging whether FB connects what it knows from WhatsApp data with their advertising platform. Even if it's metadata.

But they're probably doing so much more with Messenger and their 'shadow profiles'.

It's so frustrating how close they get to asking the real questions...

"The Facebook hearing is the greatest generational divide I’ve ever seen. It’s like watching WWII generals question somebody on drone strikes and cyberwarfare."

https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/983788172306874369

That's an entirely bullshit statement by the twitter user.

WW2 generals were very arguably some of the greatest military minds the world has ever seen. They rapidly adopted what was radically new military technology at the time and figured out how to use it extraordinarily effectively through understanding it.

Eisenhower, Montgomery, Rommel, MacArthur, Patton, Bradley would immediately understand drone strikes.

I guarantee their questions would be vastly superior in every regard to what I just watched at the hearing today.

Not to mention, the military effort practically included the invention of computers.

WWII generals invented drone strikes (V2, anyone?) and cyberwarfare (using computers to disrupt operations).

Setting aside the incredible lack of understanding, if he'd asked the same question about FB messenger he would have hit a pain point.

You missed the answer.

Z: "No, you would not see ads about Black Panther". (Paraphrased, don't have transcript)

Right. The point was how confused the senator was about how encryption works