Mark Zuckerberg Getting His Butt Handed To Him

[Rational Poster]

The masses do and so do you or you wouldn't be in here defending the suppression of free speech and political bias only because it suits your side.

The masses were dumb enough to willfully surrender their personal data to private corporations so I really don't give a shit what they think either.

 

[JonesBones]

Ever heard of blogspot/blogger?

Pintrest?

Tumblr?

Nope. Again, not the same thing. Those are more specialized. Facebook is more generalized which makes it harder to categorize.

This debate is tedious. You don't think FB is a monopoly and you think Google Plus and MySpace are real competitors to it. It should have ended there.

 

[Rational Poster]

Nope. Again, not the same thing. Those are more specialized. Facebook is more generalized which makes it harder to categorize.

This debate is tedious. You don't think FB is a monopoly and you think Google Plus and MySpace are real competitors to it. It should have ended there.

Facebook can't be a monopoly if there are multiple competitors competing for the same market share.

Facebook is not offering any unique or proprietary services nor are they engaged in any anti-competitive practices besides just offering a better more organized and streamlined product. There is an incredible amount of overlap with the services they offer and dozens of other companies.

Facebook competes with Instagram for the same market. (Just not the revenue)

Facebook competes with Google for the same market.

Facebook competes with Twitter for the same market.

Facebook competes with Snapchat for the same market.

Facebook competes with Microsoft for the same market.

Facebook competes with Apple for the same market.

 

[86'd]

The masses were dumb enough to willfully surrender their personal data to private corporations so I really don't give a shit what they think either.

Starting to sound like a Libertarian now.

 

[Trotsky]

Does anyone honestly feel like this will actually have any real impact on how Facebook handles its content from an ideological standpoint?

Well, they don't handle content from an ideological standpoint, so.....

 

[Teppodama]

Well, they don't handle content from an ideological standpoint, so.....

Sure they don't.

 

[JonesBones]

Facebook can't be a monopoly if there are multiple competitors competing for the same market share.

Facebook is not offering any unique or proprietary services nor are they engaged in any anti-competitive practices besides just offering a better more organized and streamlined product. There is an incredible amount of overlap with the services they offer and dozens of other companies.

Facebook competes with Instagram for the same market. (Just not the revenue)

Facebook competes with Google for the same market.

Facebook competes with Twitter for the same market.

Facebook competes with Snapchat for the same market.

Facebook competes with Microsoft for the same market.

Facebook competes with Apple for the same market.

Those are market categories not Facebook as a whole. Apple, Microsoft' etcs main products are not in competition with FB. Which is something of its own.It is different than all those things BECAUSE IT IS ALL THOSE THINGS. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Bernie Sanders and other said they should be regulated like utilities. I am starting to agree. Anyway, for somebody who cares nothing about Facebook or its fate, you spend a lot of time defending it tooth and nail.

 

[Trotsky]

Sure they don't.

Explain yourself. Give some evidence that these huge rich white people-owned corporations are insidiously promoting a progressive/Democrat/socialist agenda.

How does a for-profit corporation that only exists to expand its market share promulgate an ideology? What ideology would be consistent with their profit motives? To me, lowering taxes on corporations, deregulating information technology, lowering trade barriers: these would make sense. But, alas, those are right-wing stances.

Come on, stop boxing phantoms and actually confront the issue. Just assuming they do to suit your victim complex and then condescending when someone points out there is no evidence or logic to support your stance....that's not what adults do.

 

[Rational Poster]

Those are market categories not Facebook as a whole. Apple, Microsoft' etcs main products are not in competition with FB. Which is something of its own.It is different than all those things BECAUSE IT IS ALL THOSE THINGS. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Bernie Sanders and other said they should be regulated like utilities. I am starting to agree. Anyway, for somebody who cares nothing about Facebook or its fate, you spend a lot of time defending it tooth and nail.

I'm not defending it tooth and nail, just being honest.

What is Facebook besides a popular web forum with a built in friends list?

 

[deltapapha]

Don’t worry sweetie, you’re a liberal, we got your back

 

[kpt018]

Social networking is a service. Who is their competitor there?

This site lists 60, but there are more:

https://makeawebsitehub.com/social-media-sites/

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

How the F did they allow Diamond and Silk's facebook page to get deleted? Silly shit...but you can put peanut butter as an option for your gender?

Cruz is smarter than he looks. Zuckerberg is obviously using FB to promote his globalist agenda and his company should be treated as political.

 

[Teppodama]

Explain yourself. Give some evidence that these huge rich white people-owned corporations are insidiously promoting a progressive/Democrat/socialist agenda.

How does a for-profit corporation that only exists to expand its market share promulgate an ideology? What ideology would be consistent with their profit motives? To me, lowering taxes on corporations, deregulating information technology, lowering trade barriers: these would make sense. But, alas, those are right-wing stances.

Come on, stop boxing phantoms and actually confront the issue. Just assuming they do to suit your victim complex and then condescending when someone points out there is no evidence or logic to support your stance....that's not what adults do.

Trotsky, there have been numerous examples of conservative outlets being censored under the nebulous decree of "hate speech". Often it revolves around criticism of liberal policies such as immigration, open borders, trans policies, etc. Most of the personnel involved with the company hold Liberal progressive views in this regard as has been mentioned on more than one occasion. The companies they work with to help monitor such "speech" are also acknowledged supporters of these policies.

You can be as disingenuous as you wish in denying what is occurring but that doesn't change the fact its obvious. Oh they're quick enough to correct the "mistakes" when someone calls them out on it but pretty much everyone of a conservative opinion realizes whats going on and why it's happening. No reason to be shy about it. Liberal progressive ideology controls Facebook and as time moves on more and more conservative opinions will be squeezed out. Some may be allowed to stay in order to keep up the illusion but they'll do so in a very constrained manner which their more Liberal counterparts won't be required to endure.

Facebook is a Liberals game. Conservatives may be allowed to participate but they'll do so from the bench or be sent back to the locker room.

 

[danny23]

Damn...


https://www.theguardian.com/comment...l-the-data-facebook-google-has-on-you-privacy

 

[Trotsky]

Trotsky, there have been numerous examples of conservative outlets being censored under the nebulous decree of "hate speech". Often it revolves around criticism of liberal policies such as immigration, open borders, trans policies, etc. Most of the personnel involved with the company hold Liberal progressive views in this regard as has been mentioned on more than one occasion. The companies they work with to help monitor such "speech" are also acknowledged supporters of these policies.

You can be as disingenuous as you wish in denying what is occurring but that doesn't change the fact its obvious. Oh they're quick enough to correct the "mistakes" when someone calls them out on it but pretty much everyone of a conservative opinion realizes whats going on and why it's happening. No reason to be shy about it. Liberal progressive ideology controls Facebook and as time moves on more and more conservative opinions will be squeezed out. Some may be allowed to stay in order to keep up the illusion but they'll do so in a very constrained manner which their more Liberal counterparts won't be required to endure.

Facebook is a Liberals game. Conservatives may be allowed to participate but they'll do so from the bench or be sent back to the locker room.

Again, I'm asking you for:
(a) evidence of disparate treatment, or
(b) actual logic that doesn't fly in the face of independent (and legally required) business judgment to the contrary.

The only sensible explanation for any such treatment is pretty obvious: there are current uproars over the promulgation of fake news and propaganda through fake conservative groups/profiles, which is being consumed and spread by conservative users. So, to suppress that, it would make sense some incidental marginalization of idiot conservatives would occur concurrent to that effort.

It's not Facebook's fault that conservatives are by far the biggest consumers and spreaders of lies and propaganda, whether published by profiteers or foreign agents.

 

[GtehMVP]

Zuckerberg looks like when they recreate a bust from skeletal remains to see what someone looked like when they were alive, only this creepy MF'er is walking around looking like that. Just looking like the undead or something.

lol I thought that was photoshopped for a second. He looks like a poorly rendered NPC

 

[MusterX]

lol I thought that was photoshopped for a second. He looks like a poorly rendered NPC

LOL, yea he does. I have no idea why he looks like that. The guy is a billionaire, get some makeup people or someone on the payroll. He's about one step away from Nosferatu.

 

[PEB]

Steve Jobs sends a privacy message to Mark while he was still alive.

 

[MiniCraque]

He's there to answer whatever they ask him. Like being a monopoly. And CNN seems to think they blew it:

Mark Zuckerberg emerged unscathed from Tuesday's Senate committee hearing, and he did so in large part because most of the senators who asked him questions had no clue how Facebook worked, what the solutions to its problems are, or even what they were trying to achieve by calling its CEO to testify, other than getting some good soundbites in.

What the first day of the Zuckerberg hearings made clear is that many American lawmakers are illiterate when it comes to 21st century technology.

As a result, the issue that was supposed to be the focus of the hearing -- "social media privacy and the use and abuse of data," as Sen. Chuck Grassley put it -- was but one among many. And at the moment when the country needed a smart conversation about privacy, what it got was meandering questions and misfires.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/10/technology/senate-mark-zuckerberg-testimony/index.html

Cruz was one of the main culprits of this derailment and yet idiots are flocking to praise him.

 

[MiniCraque]

Name their competitors. The senators asked Zuckerberg this question and he couldn't answer. Why the fuck are you defending this bullshit?

You're acting like Zuckerberg is the good guy here.

Facebook is only a monopoly in the sense that there's no competitors offering the same package deal of services that they offer. But that's not really a good definition of a monopoly. You have to stretch it a bit for Facebook.

You can share photos with a handful of apps, you can trade instant messages with others. There are several aspects of Facebook rivaled by other companies.

The thing with these kind of services is that they are heterogeneous to the point that they might as well be entirely different products. If Facebook is a monopoly, so is Twitter, for example. Yet they compete against each other on some levels. Facebook's dominance is explained by the vast array of different resources they provide, not by the absence of other companies offering the same resources. If I invent a car that bathes me and feeds me breakfast on my way to work, I don't have a monopoly on cars, showers or diners. Consumers can get every single thing my product provides from other sources, but it just so happens that aggregating services is very convenient.

Not to mention, we don't fight monopolies for the sole fact that they're monopolies. We fight them because A) their pricing soon becomes inefficient in the context of the overall economy (Facebook is free) and B) they delay inovation (if anything Facebook accelerates it when you look at how they compete with Snapchat). So even if we do find some definition of monopoly that fits Facebook... what's the problem?