4 ms·

What exactly is the crime that Facebook committed? Why should Zuck testify? Sensationalist BS

scott_s 9y ago
Testifying before a congressional committee does not mean one is involved with a crime - it may be, but not necessarily so. Congressional committees hold hearings to investigate things, and they ask people to testify about those things to learn what is going on.
- mankash666 9y ago
  so he's free to decline , given how he hasn't committed a crime?
  - scott_s 9y ago
    You can be found in contempt of Congress if you decline the subpoena. But keep in mind that people who are subpoenaed to testify in criminal cases but are not a defendant nor suspected of any crime can be found in contempt of court for not testifying. In fact, the only time you can refuse to testify is when you are accused of a crime, as you can invoke the Fifth Amendment. (But in the case of Congressional testimony, you'll still have to show up and assert the Fifth. In a criminal trial where you are the defendant you'd just not take the stand at all.) I am not a lawyer. But as a layperson, I find your objection to be a non-sequitur; I assume that most people who testify before Congress are not suspected of wrong-doing.
    - mankash666 9y ago
      It's not a non-sequitur. The only reason to drag an innocent person through a congressional hearing is to score political brownie points with constituents. I find that reprehensible, and do not think the visibly popular & successful personalities of our time need to be dragged through a sideshow for someone's political gain
uabstraction 9y ago
Oh please. Social media was exploited and abused like never before during this election cycle. All the major social networks have become a breeding ground for extremism, geopolitical propaganda, and misinformation. The public has every right to know what role the operators of these platforms served, and what actions - if any - they took. How much did they know about it and when? Did they fight to maintain the integrity of their networks or were they complicit? Or did they simply turn a blind eye to protect their inflated user numbers and rip off the advertisers who use their platforms? Nobody is accusing Zuckerburg of a crime, but his company has hardly been transparent or forthcoming about this either. The public deserves an explanation, not only from him, but the folks at Twitter and Reddit as well.
- mankash666 9y ago
  Where is the public deriving it's said entitlement from? Morals? Ethics? or laws? There's no legal obligation on FB to shed light on anything that's completely legal. I'm assuming you're citing ethics. If FB is capable of making YOU the product, you think they care about how their advertising dollars come? As long as they're legal
  - uoaei 9y ago
    Yes, because nothing bad has ever happened from following the codes laid out by your friendly neighboorhood government.
cbernini 9y ago
TBH a testimony is used to stablish or set a fact. No way a PR statement should have the same value as a testimony.

Testifying before a congressional committee does not mean one is involved with a crime - it may be, but not necessarily so. Congressional committees hold hearings to investigate things, and they ask people to testify about those things to learn what is going on.

mankash666 9y ago
so he's free to decline , given how he hasn't committed a crime?
- scott_s 9y ago
  You can be found in contempt of Congress if you decline the subpoena. But keep in mind that people who are subpoenaed to testify in criminal cases but are not a defendant nor suspected of any crime can be found in contempt of court for not testifying. In fact, the only time you can refuse to testify is when you are accused of a crime, as you can invoke the Fifth Amendment. (But in the case of Congressional testimony, you'll still have to show up and assert the Fifth. In a criminal trial where you are the defendant you'd just not take the stand at all.) I am not a lawyer. But as a layperson, I find your objection to be a non-sequitur; I assume that most people who testify before Congress are not suspected of wrong-doing.
  - mankash666 9y ago
    It's not a non-sequitur. The only reason to drag an innocent person through a congressional hearing is to score political brownie points with constituents. I find that reprehensible, and do not think the visibly popular & successful personalities of our time need to be dragged through a sideshow for someone's political gain

uabstraction 9y ago

Oh please. Social media was exploited and abused like never before during this election cycle. All the major social networks have become a breeding ground for extremism, geopolitical propaganda, and misinformation. The public has every right to know what role the operators of these platforms served, and what actions - if any - they took. How much did they know about it and when? Did they fight to maintain the integrity of their networks or were they complicit? Or did they simply turn a blind eye to protect their inflated user numbers and rip off the advertisers who use their platforms? Nobody is accusing Zuckerburg of a crime, but his company has hardly been transparent or forthcoming about this either. The public deserves an explanation, not only from him, but the folks at Twitter and Reddit as well.

mankash666 9y ago
Where is the public deriving it's said entitlement from? Morals? Ethics? or laws? There's no legal obligation on FB to shed light on anything that's completely legal. I'm assuming you're citing ethics. If FB is capable of making YOU the product, you think they care about how their advertising dollars come? As long as they're legal
- uoaei 9y ago
  Yes, because nothing bad has ever happened from following the codes laid out by your friendly neighboorhood government.

cbernini 9y ago

TBH a testimony is used to stablish or set a fact. No way a PR statement should have the same value as a testimony.