This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
Was never very keen on it but two things made me delete it.
1.When I discovered photos I'd posted being used on another site.
2.Zuckerberg's brass in front of the committee questioning his policy on selling user information to other companies.
And the committees total lack of balls in setting boundaries or limits for him.
Sold every user down the river.
1.When I discovered photos I'd posted being used on another site.
2.Zuckerberg's brass in front of the committee questioning his policy on selling user information to other companies.
And the committees total lack of balls in setting boundaries or limits for him.
Sold every user down the river.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Picklebobble2 That sales policy is Facebook's sole reason for existence, though to be fair Zukerberg did originate it as a student-network site before turning it into a commercial data-harvester.
Yes, he is arrogant, but also a coward, perhaps axiomatically. He refused point-blank to give his side to a UK Parliamentary Select Committee, perhaps knowing these Committees would treat him civilly enough but are sharp and soon see through waffle, deceit and prevarication. He did appear before a European Union equivalent, but apparently they learnt little of any use from him. I don't know if he has been questioned by any, similar, US House Committee.
However it is unfair to blame governmental committees for not setting limits for him, because that is not their purpose; at least not in the UK and EU. They exist to collect information to help the Government itself set any rules.
Yes, he is arrogant, but also a coward, perhaps axiomatically. He refused point-blank to give his side to a UK Parliamentary Select Committee, perhaps knowing these Committees would treat him civilly enough but are sharp and soon see through waffle, deceit and prevarication. He did appear before a European Union equivalent, but apparently they learnt little of any use from him. I don't know if he has been questioned by any, similar, US House Committee.
However it is unfair to blame governmental committees for not setting limits for him, because that is not their purpose; at least not in the UK and EU. They exist to collect information to help the Government itself set any rules.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@ArishMell Government and committees start with one notion in mind and are then often brought to book by the public they are supposed to serve if they don't feel they are doing the job they expect of them.
P*$$ poor job all round !
The lack of will to even want to bring companies to heel with their data mining and e-mail spamming anytime you join a website.
And that wonderful get out of jail disclaimer....
By entering this site you give the provider access to your email and friends list..It's a nonsense .
P*$$ poor job all round !
The lack of will to even want to bring companies to heel with their data mining and e-mail spamming anytime you join a website.
And that wonderful get out of jail disclaimer....
By entering this site you give the provider access to your email and friends list..It's a nonsense .
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Picklebobble2 I agree governments must be a lot firmer with these organisations, but I'm not sure it's lack of will so much as feeling the few huge US corporations who have taken over the Internet, are beyond anyone's power.
The authorities do try - I think one or two have been fined or ordered to pay back-taxes by the EU among others - but nothing will happen until the fines wipe out a couple of years' profits AND the founder / proprietor and senior Directors are also personally fined so heavily they can't just shrug it off as a depressed trading year. If they don't pay? Seize their bank accounts until paid.
The hazard of course is that they would simply take the money from the employees by making many of them redundant, or from shareholders by denying dividends, - though either would further harm the company's reputation.
The difficulty is also who you actually go after and in which country. Ideally, it should be the companies' home legal systems; but that should not let their overseas operations and managers off the hook.
The authorities do try - I think one or two have been fined or ordered to pay back-taxes by the EU among others - but nothing will happen until the fines wipe out a couple of years' profits AND the founder / proprietor and senior Directors are also personally fined so heavily they can't just shrug it off as a depressed trading year. If they don't pay? Seize their bank accounts until paid.
The hazard of course is that they would simply take the money from the employees by making many of them redundant, or from shareholders by denying dividends, - though either would further harm the company's reputation.
The difficulty is also who you actually go after and in which country. Ideally, it should be the companies' home legal systems; but that should not let their overseas operations and managers off the hook.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@ArishMell The very fact that these companies have grown so large in the first place raises questions about competitiveness and how well they serve the public.
This should have seen companies like Google/Microsoft/Amazon/Apple etc. legally challenged and broken up as is law in many other countries.
Fining companies themselves is worthless if the maximum they can be fined is 10% of their operational capital as is the case within the USA.
If such corporations deliberately flout the law to gain viewing advantage or to misrepresent something to their users in order to get them to buy into whatever is being 'sold' that too should be challenged.
American governments sleazy business operations and the way the whole lobby system works, continually screws the public over.
This should have seen companies like Google/Microsoft/Amazon/Apple etc. legally challenged and broken up as is law in many other countries.
Fining companies themselves is worthless if the maximum they can be fined is 10% of their operational capital as is the case within the USA.
If such corporations deliberately flout the law to gain viewing advantage or to misrepresent something to their users in order to get them to buy into whatever is being 'sold' that too should be challenged.
American governments sleazy business operations and the way the whole lobby system works, continually screws the public over.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Picklebobble2 Well, I don't pretend to understand the USA's political and legal systems, but I agree with your anti-monopoly sentiments.
10% capital is probably something those companies can write off as "expenses" because they have ensured no competition.
And that raises another point: security.
We all know Facebook, Google etc shamelessly sell users' details to anyone with the right money, and using the " Full" rather than "Custom" Install option on WIN-10 is designed to give Microsoft unfettered access to your internet use (it does warn you of that, though).
However I am more concerned that the near-universality of just one set of services all in cahoots with each other must make life very much easier for the more determined professional hackers, not only the fraudsters but also those employed by the Governments of China, N. Korea and Russia,
10% capital is probably something those companies can write off as "expenses" because they have ensured no competition.
And that raises another point: security.
We all know Facebook, Google etc shamelessly sell users' details to anyone with the right money, and using the " Full" rather than "Custom" Install option on WIN-10 is designed to give Microsoft unfettered access to your internet use (it does warn you of that, though).
However I am more concerned that the near-universality of just one set of services all in cahoots with each other must make life very much easier for the more determined professional hackers, not only the fraudsters but also those employed by the Governments of China, N. Korea and Russia,