DURING MARK ZUCKERBERG'S TESTIMONY
YESTERDAY THERE WERE A NUMBER OF INSTANCES WHERE AND VOTE IN
FAVOR OF DEMONSTRATED THEY DIDN'T REALLY KNOW HOW THE
PLATFORM WORKED OR HOW OUR DATA IS BEING USED IN THE FIRST
PLACE.
THINK PROGRESS PUT TOGETHER THESE MONTAGE VIDEOS TO SHOW
SOME OF THE MORE RIDICULOUS QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED.
TAKE A LOOK.
>>SEN.
WE RUN ADS.
>>I SEE.
>>THERE ARE
DAYS WHEN I WONDER IF FACEBOOK FRIENDS IS A LITTLE
MISSTATED.
DOESN'T SEEM LIKE I HAVE THOSE EVERY SINGLE DAY.
>>HOW MANY DATA CATEGORIES DO YOU STORE?
>>CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEAN?
>>HOW MANY DOES FACEBOOK STORE OUT OF?
DO YOU STORE ANY?
>>SEN., I'M NOT ALSO SURE WHAT THAT IS REFERRING TO?
>>MY SON CHARLIE WHO IS 13 WHO IS DEDICATED TO INSTAGRAM SO HE
WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE I MENTIONED HIM WHILE I WAS WITH
YOU.
>>EMAILING WITHIN WHATSAPP DOES NOT EVER INFORM YOUR
ADVERTISERS?
>>NO.
WE DON'T SEE ANY OF THE CONTENT ON WHATSAPP, IT IS FULLY
ENCRYPTED.
>>LET'S SAY I'M EMAILING ABOUT BLACK PANTHER.
DO I GET A BLACK PANTHER BANNER AD?
>>SEN., FACEBOOK'S SYSTEMS DO NOT SEE THE CONTENT OF MESSAGES
BEING TRANSFERRED OVER WHATSAPP.
>>BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M ASKING.
I'M ASKING ABOUT WHETHER THESE SYSTEMS TALK TO EACH OTHER
WITHOUT A HUMAN BEING TOUCHING IT?
>>THAT WAS I GUESS SOMEWHAT ENTERTAINING BUT ALSO VERY
DEPRESSING.
I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE MOST DEPRESSING EXCHANGE CAME FROM
SEN.
JOHN KENNEDY OF LOUISIANA.
THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING WAS AMAZING BECAUSE HE JUST KEPT
ASKING THE SAME QUESTION OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND GETTING THE
SAME ANSWER.
TAKE A LOOK.
>>ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE ME MORE CONTROL OVER MY DATA?
>>SEN., AS SOMEONE WHO USES FACEBOOK I BELIEVE YOU SHOULD
HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OVER YOUR DATA.
>>ARE YOU WILLING TO GO BACK AND WORK ON GIVING ME A GREATER
RIGHT TO ERASE MY DATA?
>>SEN.
YOU CAN ALREADY DELETE ANY OF THE DATA THAT IS THERE OR
DELETE OUT OF YOUR DATA?
>>WORK ON EXPANDING THAT?
>>SEN.
I THINK WE ALREADY DO WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO BUT
CERTAINLY WE ARE ALWAYS WORKING ON TRYING TO MAKE THESE CONTROLS
EASIER.
>>ARE YOU WILLING TO EXPAND MY RIGHT TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE
SHARING MY DATA WITH?
>>SEN., WE ALREADY GIVE YOU A LIST OF APPS THAT YOU ARE USING
AND YOU SIGNED INTO THOSE YOURSELF AND PROVIDED
AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE WE DON'T SHARE ANY
DATA ñ
>>ARE YOU WILLING TO EXPAND MY RIGHT TO PROHIBIT YOU FROM
SHARING MY DATA?
>>SEN., AGAIN I BELIEVE THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT CONTROL.
I THINK PEOPLE HAVE THAT FULL CONTROL IN THE SYSTEM ALREADY
TODAY.
IF WE ARE NOT COMMUNICATING THIS CLEARLY THEN THAT IS A BIG THING
WE SHOULD WORK ON AS I THINK THE PRINCIPLES THAT YOU ARE
ARTICULATING ARE THE ONES THAT WE BELIEVE IN AND TRY TO CODIFY
IN THE PRODUCT WE BUILD.
>>ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO TAKE MY DATA ON
FACEBOOK AND MOVE IT TO ANOTHER SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM?
>>SEN., YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT.
WE HAVE A DOWNLOAD YOUR INFORMATION TOOL WHERE YOU CAN
GO GET A FILE OF ALL THE CONTENT THERE AND DO WHATEVER YOU WANT
WITH IT.
>>CENK, JUMP IN.
>>IN THIS CASE THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS HERE.
I DON'T THINK THE QUESTIONS WERE NECESSARILY THAT IGNORANT AND I
THINK ñ HE IS BASICALLY THE POINT THAT HATCH WAS TRYING TO
MAKE WAS PEOPLE KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT A SERVICE YOU PAY FOR SO
YOU RUN ADS AND IN ORDER TO RUN ADS YOU COLLECT PEOPLE'S DATA.
IT WAS A SOFTBALL QUESTION RATHER THAN AN IGNORANT
QUESTION.
THE ONE THAT WAS REALLY DIDN'T MAKE SENSE WAS THE ONE ASKING
ABOUT DATA CATEGORIES.
BUT IS NOT A THING.
WHAT KENNEDY WAS TRYING TO DO BUT DID A VERY POOR JOB OF AND
HE SHOULD BE MATT AND HIS STAFF ARE NOT PREPARING HIM BETTER IS
HE IS SAYING CAN I GET MY DATA OUT?
YES, YOU CAN DELETE IT IF
YOU WANT OR MOVE IT, BUT THAT IS A SYSTEM THEY HAVE NOW.
YOU CAN OPT OUT.
YOU CAN SAY NOT ONLY CAN YOU TAKE YOUR DATE OUT, YOU CAN SAY
YOU CANNOT USE MY DATA.
BUT WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE ASKED IS WILL BE MOVED TO AN OPT IN
SYSTEM WHERE IT IS ASSUMED THAT YOU WILL NOT GET MY DATA.
ONLY IF I AFFIRMATIVELY TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED THEN YOU
CAN HAVE IT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SHARING IT WITH ADVERTISERS ETC.
THAT IS A REALLY HARD QUESTION AND ZUCKERBERG HAD TO BE
ENORMOUSLY RELIEVED THAT HE DIDN'T GET THAT QUESTION AND
THAT KENNEDY BOTCHED IT.
ONE MORE DEFENSE OF THESE SENATORS THAT I NORMALLY
DISAGREE WITH.
FACEBOOK IS NOT THAT INTUITIVE.
IF YOU ARE AN OLD SENATOR AND YOU GO ON THEIR, BETWEEN THE
WALLS AND THE POSTS AND THE FRIENDS AND THE LIKES, AND THIS
AND THAT, YOU REALLY HAVE TO GET READ INTO THAT BY YOUR STAFF TO
BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND IT.
THESE FOLKS ARE 60 OR 70 YEARS OLD.
>>DON'T CARE.
THEY ARE LAWMAKERS AND ARE SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING
ON.
THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO KNOW HOW OUR DATA IS BEING MISUSED AND
HOW HER PRIVACY IS BEING VIOLATED.
THESE ARE THINGS THAT SHOULD BE EDUCATED ABOUT BECAUSE IT IS
LITERALLY THEIR JOB TO DO IT.
I DON'T KNOW WHY YOUR PERCEPTION IS THAT KENNEDY HAD A SMART
QUESTION IN MIND BUT DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO ARTICULATE IT.
I WATCH THE ENTIRE EXCHANGE AND IT WAS ONE INCREDIBLY IGNORANT
QUESTION AFTER THE OTHER.
I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO WATCH THE FULL FIVE HOURS HEARING BUT I
WATCHED THE MAJORITY OF IT TUTORIAL SESSION BECAUSE THEY
DIDN'T DO THEIR HOMEWORK.
MY PROBLEM WITH LAWMAKERS IN GENERAL RIGHT NOW IS THEY DON'T
DO THEIR HOMEWORK.
THEY DON'T READ THE BILLS THEY SIGN.
BOB CORKER WHINING AND CRYING ABOUT HOW HE VOTED IN FAVOR OF
TAX LEGISLATION AND HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS IN IT IS ON YOU
HOMEBOY.
THAT IS YOUR FAULT.
I AM NOT GIVING THEM CREDIT OR A PASS.
THEY ARE SO INCREDIBLY INCOMPETENT INSTEAD OF SPENDING
ALL THEIR TIME FUNDRAISING, HOW ABOUT THEY EDUCATE THEMSELVES ON
THE VERY ISSUE THEY ARE CALLING A HEARING FOR?
>>ON THAT ISSUE SOME PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT MAYBE THE SENATORS,
THE HOUSE WAS TOUGHER ON ZUCKERBERG, THE SENATORS WERE
EASIER ON HIM.
I ACTUALLY THINK THAT IS WHY THE HOUSE WAS TOUGH
ON THEM.
EVEN HARRISON BOOKER, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY TOOK FROM FACEBOOK
IS MORE THAN THE REST OF THE SENATORS BUT IT IS STILL A
REALLY SMALL AMOUNT.
FACEBOOK IS WORTH 400 BILLION.
SPENDING OVER 7 MILLION IN SIX YEARS IS ALMOST NOTHING.
WHAT FACEBOOK DID WAS THEY LEFT THEMSELVES VULNERABLE TO
POLITICIANS.
GOOGLE ON THE OTHER HAND, I LOVE THEM THEY ARE A HUGE PARTNER OF
OURS.
THEY SPEND A LOT OF MONEY LOBBYING, THAT IS SMART.
IT IS NOT MY BUSINESS, IT IS THEIR BUSINESS TO THEY GIVE
MONEY TO.
BUT IF YOU ARE ASKING ME IF IT IS POLITICALLY SAVVY?
YES.
FACEBOOK I GUARANTEE YOU WILL NOW CRANK UP THEIR SPENDING AND
PUT MONEY INTO POLITICS BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU ARE GOING TO GET
GRILLED.
EVEN IF THEY BOTCH IT AT THE SENATE LEVEL, AT THE HOUSE THEY
WERE WAY TOUGHER.
MY FINAL POLITICAL POINT IS LINDSEY GRAHAM TELLING YOU ABOUT
IT TURNS OUT VOLUNTARY ñ DIDN'T WORK.
YOU DON'T SAY?
I WILL GIVE YOU CREDIT FOR POINTING THAT OUT BUT
HOW ABOUT THE REST OF YOUR CAREER?
WHERE YOU GUYS PRETENDED
THAT DEREGULATING EVERYTHING WOULD MAKE SENSE.
NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU GUYS GET MORE MONEY FROM THE TELE-COPS
WHICH ARE OPPOSED TO FACEBOOK, YOU CAN ATTEND MONEY FROM THE
AT&T'S, THE COMCAST, AND THE VERIZON'S AND NOT MUCH MONEY
FROM FACEBOOK AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU ARE SUPER TOUGH ON
FACEBOOK AND THINK YOU SHOULD DO MORE REGULATION AND THAT
VOLUNTARY REGULATION ISN'T WORKING OUT.
WHAT A FUNNY COINCIDENCE.
>>WE ALSO KNOW THAT LAWMAKERS WHO ARE TRADITIONALLY KNOWN AS
ANTI-REGULATION LOVE REGULATION WHEN IT BENEFITS THEM AND THEIR
SELF INTEREST.
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE LAWMAKERS THAT ARE CONVINCED THERE IS SOME SORT
OF MEMBERSHIP EFFORT GEARED TOWARD CONSERVATIVES.
IT IS THEIR SELF INTEREST IN ORDER TO DO SO.
WHEN IT COMES TO PROTECTING CONSUMERS THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT
REGULATION.
WHEN IT COMES TO PROTECTING WHAT THEY WANT, OF COURSE
THEY WANT
REGULATION.