Breaking: Check out the Haugen chick testifying against criminal FB and the honey to the right of her

[Care4all]

Ds and Rs agree. Government needs to get its hooks into social media.

What would or could really work, with govt intervention, to solve the various problems with Facebook though?

Break them up like AT&T??? More competition could just mean 5 facebooks, all still invading people's lives with algorithms pushing crap on to them, and the loss of any privacy.

Besides, AT&T break up worked because all new phone companies could all use the same telephone lines and communicate with eachother.

How could a platform like Facebook and say 5 others do that...?

 

[skye]

The Facebook "whistle blower" was fake, but nice try anyway.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

If a company aligns with democrats like Facebook or Google, it is wise for investors to avoid them.

Really??, I thought it was wise for investors to make money for their clients and themselves...silly me.

Sorry, when I'm evaluating a stock, all I see are the numbers and the potential.
You want to make money, I'd leave your political leanings out of it.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Tell us....who





View attachment 547985

Both believable. Both credible, whether your alt-right proclivities will allow you to think for yourself or not.
CBF's testimony should have sunk the scumbag's nomination right there. Scumbags shouldn't get to sit on
the highest court in the land. The whistleblower?? Being in technology, I believe every word she said.
I just don't care. It's a social media platform. That's what it's designed to do. People should know that by now.
You have a choice whether or not to use. A large group of people can change things.

Sadly, that's not the case where the scumbag was concerned. A handful of far right Senators who just happened to
be in the majority made that decision. The people had no choice in the matter.

 

[FA_Q2]

What would or could really work, with govt intervention, to solve the various problems with Facebook though?

Break them up like AT&T??? More competition could just mean 5 facebooks, all still invading people's lives with algorithms pushing crap on to them, and the loss of any privacy.

Congress knows this too. It is why talks of breaking them up ended almost immediately, it really is not an option in this case.

Besides, AT&T break up worked because all new phone companies could all use the same telephone lines and communicate with eachother.

How could a platform like Facebook and say 5 others do that...?

5 Facebooks would diffuse the power and require competition which means a much better situation. However, breaking Facebook up is a pipe dream. It cannot be done because the customer pool is not physical and therefore does not require a physical location. If FB were to be broken up somehow, one of the companies would attract the larger share of the population which would in turn attract more people considering the product FB is selling is communication and information. Both things that are greatly improved with scope. Basically we would have one Facebook within a year again.

There are not government solutions here, as there rarely is for most problems. The 'solution' is for government to shut up and move over. We the people will either use FB or we will not. Its existence and the form it takes is up to us.

 

[FA_Q2]

Both believable. Both credible, whether your alt-right proclivities will allow you to think for yourself or not.
CBF's testimony should have sunk the scumbag's nomination right there. Scumbags shouldn't get to sit on
the highest court in the land. The whistleblower?? Being in technology, I believe every word she said.
I just don't care. It's a social media platform. That's what it's designed to do. People should know that by now.
You have a choice whether or not to use. A large group of people can change things.

Sadly, that's not the case where the scumbag was concerned. A handful of far right Senators who just happened to
be in the majority made that decision. The people had no choice in the matter.

Because accusations even when they lack evidence, corroboration and even any remote details are enough for you. I wonder if you feel the same way about Biden considering he was accused of rape. Or is this only republicans?

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Because accusations even when they lack evidence, corroboration and even any remote details are enough for you. I wonder if you feel the same way about Biden considering he was accused of rape. Or is this only republicans?

OK. Well, that person has brought her allegations. Then changed her story. Then changed her story again. Then co-workers couldn't back her statements up. Then, the bad character stuff comes out.
Now, in the case of CBF, I believe her co-workers didn't WANT to back her statements up. Republican Senators found her testimony believable...but still voted for the scumbag.

 

[FA_Q2]

OK. Well, that person has brought her allegations. Then changed her story. Then changed her story again. Then co-workers couldn't back her statements up. Then, the bad character stuff comes out.
Now, in the case of CBF, I believe her co-workers didn't WANT to back her statements up. Republican Senators found her testimony believable...but still voted for the scumbag.

So, yes. It is only republicans.

Not that I am surprised. The facts are pretty damn stark, both cases have nothing to back them up. One you want to defend and the other you think should disqualify him for office. The most powerful position in the nation, just fine and dandy. The SCOTUS member, oh hell no.

One, you take the story and try and make it false, the other you invent motivations (they didn't want to back her up) in order to FORCE it to fit what you want to believe. That she lacked anyone backing her up is not an indication people were hiding the truth, its an indication that it is not true. The only person that remotely corroborated her story turned out she was threatened into it. That anyone still sticks to attacking Justice Kavanaugh for this is slickening.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

So, yes. It is only republicans.

Not that I am surprised. The facts are pretty damn stark, both cases have nothing to back them up. One you want to defend and the other you think should disqualify him for office. The most powerful position in the nation, just fine and dandy. The SCOTUS member, oh hell no.

One, you take the story and try and make it false, the other you invent motivations (they didn't want to back her up) in order to FORCE it to fit what you want to believe. That she lacked anyone backing her up is not an indication people were hiding the truth, its an indication that it is not true. The only person that remotely corroborated her story turned out she was threatened into it. That anyone still sticks to attacking Justice Kavanaugh for this is slickening.

Given the fact that you supported the last guy in the Oval Office (who had more than 20 credible allegations against him), your statement doesn't count for much.
And justices are not supposed to be a Republican or Democrat. But Kavanaugh and Thomas are scumbags. Both Gorsuch and ACB were reputable jurists. While I objected to the hypocrisy around
their nominations, I never for one moment thought either one didn't deserve to sit on the SC. Not so with Kavanaugh. Like Thomas, scumbags shouldn't get to sit on the highest
court in the land and make laws for the rest of us common folk. Now, I give you permission to be as sick as you'd like. The fact of the matter is that Trump had ACB on his short list
when he was considering the scumbag. So why didn't he pick her then? Could have avoided the whole circus.

 

[FA_Q2]

Given the fact that you supported the last guy in the Oval Office (who had more than 20 credible allegations against him), your statement doesn't count for much.
And justices are not supposed to be a Republican or Democrat. But Kavanaugh and Thomas are scumbags. Both Gorsuch and ACB were reputable jurists. While I objected to the hypocrisy around
their nominations, I never for one moment thought either one didn't deserve to sit on the SC. Not so with Kavanaugh. Like Thomas, scumbags shouldn't get to sit on the highest
court in the land and make laws for the rest of us common folk. Now, I give you permission to be as sick as you'd like. The fact of the matter is that Trump had ACB on his short list
when he was considering the scumbag. So why didn't he pick her then? Could have avoided the whole circus.

Really, perhaps you can link to me supporting 'the last guy.'

Again, he is a scumbag because you have declared it so contrary TO EVERY SCRAP OF EVIDENCE. Every scrap. There is, quite literally, nothing to back up the charges against Justice Kavanaugh. Nothing.

 

[Care4all]

5 Facebooks would diffuse the power and require competition which means a much better situation. However, breaking Facebook up is a pipe dream. It cannot be done because the customer pool is not physical and therefore does not require a physical location. If FB were to be broken up somehow, one of the companies would attract the larger share of the population which would in turn attract more people considering the product FB is selling is communication and information. Both things that are greatly improved with scope. Basically we would have one Facebook within a year again.

There are not government solutions here, as there rarely is for most problems. The 'solution' is for government to shut up and move over. We the people will either use FB or we will not. Its existence and the form it takes is up to us.

You are paying bigtime, for facebook.... It is NOT FREE, nothing his free, as the saying goes.

You are paying, by allowing ads and news on to your page....
You're also paying by allowing Facebook to trace and follow your and your friends every itty bitty move you make.....and then inundate you with similar ads, news or fake news products.


You've made Zuckerman a multi billionaire by allowing him to invade your privacy, for free.

He should be paying YOU a percentage for what he makes off of you allowing him to invade your lives imho.

And you, the member, has no choice in the matter of giving up your privacy.....you are boxed in. You have no choice given by the company, and if you want to interact with your friends and family and co workers and that's it, you are shit out of luck.

As you stated, a break up will likely just make Facebook number 1 again in a realm of competition.

Especially, if there is no way to create a system like our phone lines, where multiple vendors all use the same system. Where if you are on one, you can view and see and talk, to the members on a competing platform.... I just can't imagine how that could be done?

Members should have a choice, to opting out of being traced and part of algorithms.

Those who opt in, should get a cut of the ad sales.

 

[FA_Q2]

You are paying bigtime, for facebook.... It is NOT FREE, nothing his free, as the saying goes.

You are paying, by allowing ads and news on to your page....
You're also paying by allowing Facebook to trace and follow your and your friends every itty bitty move you make.....and then inundate you with similar ads, news or fake news products.

And?

You will note that nowhere did I say anything about the cost of FB service. That is irrelevant. What FB costs has no relation to what will happen should it be split into multiple companies.

You've made Zuckerman a multi billionaire by allowing him to invade your privacy, for free.

He should be paying YOU a percentage for what he makes off of you allowing him to invade your lives imho.

No, no "I" haven't. You really think that you can call viewing ads and access to information you freely give FB is what you 'pay' FB but somehow all the services that FB provides you for that cost is 'free.'

FB does pay you for your information - they pay you a service. A damn good service apparently as they are the best in the business at the moment. So, yes, you already got your value, aka pay, from FB. That is why people freely engage in business with FB, because they are getting the value they want from it.

And you, the member, has no choice in the matter of giving up your privacy.....you are boxed in. You have no choice given by the company, and if you want to interact with your friends and family and co workers and that's it, you are shit out of luck.

Bull ******* shit. You have 100 percent say in the matter - don't like their policies then do not use their service. I do not use facebook. I use other social media platforms such as this one. If I want to interact with friends or family, I go interact with them or call them or text them or skype them or use a MILLION other options.

Since when did the interface at FB become the end all of interaction. You are just torpedoing your own statements, apparently FB provides such massive value for your scant information that all other communication methods are no longer relevant.

Shit, you should be paying WAY more than you do for FB then.

As you stated, a break up will likely just make Facebook number 1 again in a realm of competition.

Especially, if there is no way to create a system like our phone lines, where multiple vendors all use the same system. Where if you are on one, you can view and see and talk, to the members on a competing platform.... I just can't imagine how that could be done?

Members should have a choice, to opting out of being traced and part of algorithms.

Those who opt in, should get a cut of the ad sales.

Then start a company that does so. You are essentially saying you should be able to directly PAY your customer base so you should be able take over FB market share easily. The sheer fact that one has not come about gives the lie to the idea in the first place.

Go ahead, give members an opt out, watch FB simply cease to exist because you do not want to even pay essentially nothing to use the service and then wonder what you have gained. Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

 

[Care4all]

And?

You will note that nowhere did I say anything about the cost of FB service. That is irrelevant. What FB costs has no relation to what will happen should it be split into multiple companies.

No, no "I" haven't. You really think that you can call viewing ads and access to information you freely give FB is what you 'pay' FB but somehow all the services that FB provides you for that cost is 'free.'

FB does pay you for your information - they pay you a service. A damn good service apparently as they are the best in the business at the moment. So, yes, you already got your value, aka pay, from FB. That is why people freely engage in business with FB, because they are getting the value they want from it.

Bull ******* shit. You have 100 percent say in the matter - don't like their policies then do not use their service. I do not use facebook. I use other social media platforms such as this one. If I want to interact with friends or family, I go interact with them or call them or text them or skype them or use a MILLION other options.

Since when did the interface at FB become the end all of interaction. You are just torpedoing your own statements, apparently FB provides such massive value for your scant information that all other communication methods are no longer relevant.

Shit, you should be paying WAY more than you do for FB then.

Then start a company that does so. You are essentially saying you should be able to directly PAY your customer base so you should be able take over FB market share easily. The sheer fact that one has not come about gives the lie to the idea in the first place.

Go ahead, give members an opt out, watch FB simply cease to exist because you do not want to even pay essentially nothing to use the service and then wonder what you have gained. Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

You don't freely give it to facebook, you have no choice.

 

[FA_Q2]

You don't freely give it to facebook, you have no choice.

Really?

I have given nothing to facebook. How is it that I have no choice in the matter then?

 

[Care4all]

Really?

I have given nothing to facebook. How is it that I have no choice in the matter then?

Looks likely Facebook is now giving a choice and going to allow users to opt out, of their algorithms on their different platforms, I heard last night, on the news..... Even they know how they are harming society....

 

[FA_Q2]

Looks likely Facebook is now giving a choice and going to allow users to opt out, of their algorithms on their different platforms, I heard last night, on the news..... Even they know how they are harming society....

Ya, we will see what that actually means.

I have seen this same thing over in the EU as they have much more stringent rules and thus far it has been a farce.

 

[Aletheia4u]

The Facebook "whistle blower" was fake, but nice try anyway.

She was a Globalist's shill trying to give Congress the power to monitor and censor anyone they claim as a threat on Facebook and other media outlets.

 

[MinTrut]

This chick is a big lib...she is arguing for more censorship not less...this is a set up....

Exactly.

FB wants the government to impose content standards which only FB & Google can afford to maintain, thus forever destroying any possibility of competition.

She's no more a whistle blower than Biden is sound of mind.

 

[MinTrut]

Don't be fooled by this case. The whistleblower is a radical leftist. She wants FB to be MORE left than it is now. Total censorship of anything that isn't part of the far-left agenda. I'm OK with that, the faster FB becomes irrelevant, the better.

Facebook censors the left as much or more than the right.

FB is liberal, not leftist.

Confusing liberals with the left is like thinking Nazis were Jewish.

 

[MinTrut]

She donated to Dems, she’s still a leftwing shill.

Dems aren't left wing any more than Nazis were Jewish.

But yes, she is a shill.