6 ms·

It's a really odd line of questioning from people who don't seem to understand the subject matter. This gem made me laugh out loud: Senator: How do you sus

It's a really odd line of questioning from people who don't seem to understand the subject matter. This gem made me laugh out loud: Senator: How do you sustain a business model in which users don't pay for your service? Zuckerberg (in a disdainful tone): Senator, we run ads. https://clips.twitch.tv/FantasticCrowdedDelicataPipeHype https://clips.twitch.tv/FantasticCrowdedDelicataPipeHype Edit: I directly transcribed the exchange

merouan 9y ago
I think you're misunderstanding the intent: obviously they are aware of that. Hearings commonly involve asking basic questions
- fbonetti 9y ago
  I know that was probably the intent, but the senator sounded genuinely confused. It didn't sound like a deposition-style question.
  - drchiu 9y ago
    Agreed. I’ve been involved in a few of these regulator type of questioning and they all speak the same way. It has the effect of making the (obvious) answer seem criminal. People in real life don’t talk that way because it can come across as rude.
  - komali2 9y ago
    I see so many lawyers adopt this same tone. Something about crafting a narrative or something - maybe to get the interviewee to be a little more open than they normally would because they underestimate the knowledge of their interviewer, or just to make the interviewee make the mistake of thinking the interviewer is generally ignorant/stupid.
  - kzrdude 9y ago
    Zuck actually deflected that one well, and didn't have to elaborate unfortunately (or the Senator was ill prepared). There's a lot more to facebook ads than just "we show ads". To which degree do they sell out users' info to the advertisers?
  - edaemon 9y ago
    That senator, Orrin Hatch (R-UT), is 84 years old. He may be genuinely unaware of how sites like Facebook make money, though his expression after Zuckerberg answered seemed like he was entirely aware of how basic the question/answer was.
  - tomc1985 9y ago
    If the guy is smart I'm pretty sure it's an act. Most legal professionals seem to have their emotions on lock
gizmo385 9y ago
Timestamp for this exchange?
- gtremper 9y ago
  https://clips.twitch.tv/FantasticCrowdedDelicataPipeHype https://clips.twitch.tv/FantasticCrowdedDelicataPipeHype
  - gizmo385 9y ago
    Thanks!
lakechfoma 9y ago
I think he was trying to get at something here though: can you run a business that is free for some people and isn't ad based? To which I think the answer could be nuanced. Maybe a large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population that doesn't have that privilege. Note I'm not actually advocating that, just saying I want to give the guy a benefit of the doubt that he was trying to move the conversation somewhere new and creative. I think a lot of these questions have been like that, but ultimately the senators couldn't figure out how to phrase what they were getting at and both sides floundered to understand what was going on. edit: as an example was another senator, "mr funny guy", who was trying to ask if facebook tracks how people use other apps or devices, I'm still not sure, even when they aren't logged in or something. I saw 3 possible questions that he was trying to ask and they all would have been good but I don't think either of them understood what he was asking so they went back and forth uselessly. Could have been some hard hitting commentary on the bundling of permissions, or the bundling of fb with a phone, or the ability for fb to track other app usage, or the ability of fb to track users on websites even when not logged in. oh well.
- 18pfsmt 9y ago
  None of these people (i.e. legislators) should be involved until/unless they decide to learn how this stuff works.
  - ovao 9y ago
    What, you don’t think that someone who believes WhatsApp is an email client should be allowed to legislate technology? /sarcasm
  - lakechfoma 9y ago
    It sounded like no one even proofread and edited their questions or lines of reasoning. There should be a panel of non-partisan people, not even experts, taking the dumb out of their questions before they engage. It was a waste of time. Even some strong questions and ideas were shutdown because they couldn't formulate it, and then the internet turned it into another way to laugh at congress. Maybe there needs to be an old-lawyer to SME translator doing the talking too. This person questions a SME on behalf of the senators and they can speak up or seek clarification when needed. Proofread questions and competent speech.
jonbarker 9y ago
Interesting take. I actually read that as a 'softball question' from one supporter of adtech 'free as in beer products' to another. As in, aren't these people who are outraged funny? How else could we create something for free? It was in effect a signal 'don't worry, this won't turn into any meaningful regulation affecting your bottom line.' Don't be duped by people who 'play dumb'. There are many examples of people who don't understand technology in Congress, I don't think this is one of them.
rdiddly 9y ago
The question and its answer succeed in getting Zuckerberg on record (in the Congressional Record, no less) as saying that his business model depends on advertising, with all that that implies about the relationship between Facebook and its users. Think of it as like when you're on the witness stand and the attorney asks you a question. It's not because he doesn't know the answer. It's because he wants you to say the answer, to make it part of the public record and to have the jury hear it. Speaking of juries, the arrogance of Zuckerberg's answer wouldn't win any points with a jury, either. He walked into a trap right there. It's fun to bust on our parents & politicos but I'm pretty sure anybody who managed to raise you, or especially get into the Senate, has a much more extensive and nuanced understanding of life (and politics) than you think.
- nl 9y ago
  Tv and newspapers is funded by advertising. Nothing shameful in that.
  - kej 9y ago
    I've said this before, but I think most people don't have a problem with advertising, per se, but with the tracking required for super effective advertising. When Google first showed up and just tossed some ads at the top of your search results based solely on the search terms, that was actually helpful. It wasn't something that people were creeped out by until they were tracking you everywhere to sell even more targeted ads. Since newspapers and TV don't have that tracking capability, the advertisements are annoying but not unsettling, I think.
  - drb91 9y ago
    Depends on your values, I suppose.
- manigandham 9y ago
  > Zuckerberg on record (in the Congressional Record, no less) as saying that his business model depends on advertising This has never been secret and has been "on record" for a very long time. I think most people will see the absolutely dismal lack of technical understanding by Congress rather than any arrogance by Facebook as they too get fed up with these aimless questions.
kerng 9y ago
I think question like this are important for the record
rdtsc 9y ago
> It's a really odd line of questioning from people who don't seem to understand the subject matter. Maybe but that particular quote "Zuckerberg (in a disdainful tone): Senator, we run ads." is not an example of it. Sometimes they ask really basic questions, not because they don't know the answer to it, but to enter it into the record. It's how a police or how cross examination starts, get them to admit basic stuff then later make them contradict themselves. Another reason for basic "stupid" questions is to provide information for others who many not be aware. We all know how FB makes money, but that might not extend to people who aren't proficient technically (think grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles...).
freekh 9y ago
If this is not going to be a meme I don't know. He has beautiful smile at the end there :)

merouan 9y ago

I think you're misunderstanding the intent: obviously they are aware of that. Hearings commonly involve asking basic questions

fbonetti 9y ago
I know that was probably the intent, but the senator sounded genuinely confused. It didn't sound like a deposition-style question.
- drchiu 9y ago
  Agreed. I’ve been involved in a few of these regulator type of questioning and they all speak the same way. It has the effect of making the (obvious) answer seem criminal. People in real life don’t talk that way because it can come across as rude.
- komali2 9y ago
  I see so many lawyers adopt this same tone. Something about crafting a narrative or something - maybe to get the interviewee to be a little more open than they normally would because they underestimate the knowledge of their interviewer, or just to make the interviewee make the mistake of thinking the interviewer is generally ignorant/stupid.
- kzrdude 9y ago
  Zuck actually deflected that one well, and didn't have to elaborate unfortunately (or the Senator was ill prepared). There's a lot more to facebook ads than just "we show ads". To which degree do they sell out users' info to the advertisers?
- edaemon 9y ago
  That senator, Orrin Hatch (R-UT), is 84 years old. He may be genuinely unaware of how sites like Facebook make money, though his expression after Zuckerberg answered seemed like he was entirely aware of how basic the question/answer was.
- tomc1985 9y ago
  If the guy is smart I'm pretty sure it's an act. Most legal professionals seem to have their emotions on lock

gizmo385 9y ago

Timestamp for this exchange?

gtremper 9y ago
https://clips.twitch.tv/FantasticCrowdedDelicataPipeHype https://clips.twitch.tv/FantasticCrowdedDelicataPipeHype
- gizmo385 9y ago
  Thanks!

lakechfoma 9y ago

I think he was trying to get at something here though: can you run a business that is free for some people and isn't ad based? To which I think the answer could be nuanced. Maybe a large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population that doesn't have that privilege. Note I'm not actually advocating that, just saying I want to give the guy a benefit of the doubt that he was trying to move the conversation somewhere new and creative. I think a lot of these questions have been like that, but ultimately the senators couldn't figure out how to phrase what they were getting at and both sides floundered to understand what was going on. edit: as an example was another senator, "mr funny guy", who was trying to ask if facebook tracks how people use other apps or devices, I'm still not sure, even when they aren't logged in or something. I saw 3 possible questions that he was trying to ask and they all would have been good but I don't think either of them understood what he was asking so they went back and forth uselessly. Could have been some hard hitting commentary on the bundling of permissions, or the bundling of fb with a phone, or the ability for fb to track other app usage, or the ability of fb to track users on websites even when not logged in. oh well.

18pfsmt 9y ago
None of these people (i.e. legislators) should be involved until/unless they decide to learn how this stuff works.
- ovao 9y ago
  What, you don’t think that someone who believes WhatsApp is an email client should be allowed to legislate technology? /sarcasm
- lakechfoma 9y ago
  It sounded like no one even proofread and edited their questions or lines of reasoning. There should be a panel of non-partisan people, not even experts, taking the dumb out of their questions before they engage. It was a waste of time. Even some strong questions and ideas were shutdown because they couldn't formulate it, and then the internet turned it into another way to laugh at congress. Maybe there needs to be an old-lawyer to SME translator doing the talking too. This person questions a SME on behalf of the senators and they can speak up or seek clarification when needed. Proofread questions and competent speech.

jonbarker 9y ago

Interesting take. I actually read that as a 'softball question' from one supporter of adtech 'free as in beer products' to another. As in, aren't these people who are outraged funny? How else could we create something for free? It was in effect a signal 'don't worry, this won't turn into any meaningful regulation affecting your bottom line.' Don't be duped by people who 'play dumb'. There are many examples of people who don't understand technology in Congress, I don't think this is one of them.

rdiddly 9y ago

The question and its answer succeed in getting Zuckerberg on record (in the Congressional Record, no less) as saying that his business model depends on advertising, with all that that implies about the relationship between Facebook and its users. Think of it as like when you're on the witness stand and the attorney asks you a question. It's not because he doesn't know the answer. It's because he wants you to say the answer, to make it part of the public record and to have the jury hear it. Speaking of juries, the arrogance of Zuckerberg's answer wouldn't win any points with a jury, either. He walked into a trap right there. It's fun to bust on our parents & politicos but I'm pretty sure anybody who managed to raise you, or especially get into the Senate, has a much more extensive and nuanced understanding of life (and politics) than you think.

nl 9y ago
Tv and newspapers is funded by advertising. Nothing shameful in that.
- kej 9y ago
  I've said this before, but I think most people don't have a problem with advertising, per se, but with the tracking required for super effective advertising. When Google first showed up and just tossed some ads at the top of your search results based solely on the search terms, that was actually helpful. It wasn't something that people were creeped out by until they were tracking you everywhere to sell even more targeted ads. Since newspapers and TV don't have that tracking capability, the advertisements are annoying but not unsettling, I think.
- drb91 9y ago
  Depends on your values, I suppose.
manigandham 9y ago
> Zuckerberg on record (in the Congressional Record, no less) as saying that his business model depends on advertising This has never been secret and has been "on record" for a very long time. I think most people will see the absolutely dismal lack of technical understanding by Congress rather than any arrogance by Facebook as they too get fed up with these aimless questions.

kerng 9y ago

I think question like this are important for the record

rdtsc 9y ago

> It's a really odd line of questioning from people who don't seem to understand the subject matter. Maybe but that particular quote "Zuckerberg (in a disdainful tone): Senator, we run ads." is not an example of it. Sometimes they ask really basic questions, not because they don't know the answer to it, but to enter it into the record. It's how a police or how cross examination starts, get them to admit basic stuff then later make them contradict themselves. Another reason for basic "stupid" questions is to provide information for others who many not be aware. We all know how FB makes money, but that might not extend to people who aren't proficient technically (think grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles...).

freekh 9y ago

If this is not going to be a meme I don't know. He has beautiful smile at the end there :)