15 ms·

Zuckerberg didn’t make any friends in Europe today

209 points by laktak 8y ago

zaarn 8y ago
From what I gathered on news sources, most of the (german) MEPs are extremely pissed at Zuckerberg in regards to the question answered, the format of the Q&A and the refusal to livestream a real Q&A. He brought up the question about FB's monopoly on the market, stating that there are plenty of competitor products ("we might have a monopoly on cars but there are still planes, bikes and walking!"). Zuck didn't make friends, I'm fairly certain he made enemies in Europe.
- vixen99 8y ago
  The form of the meeting gave no chance for more than fleeting cross-questioning and ensured that while sharp questions could be asked in plenty Zuckerberg was free to respond with loose generalities and was never put on the spot.
  - kiriakasis 8y ago
    That is the point I think, let him show his commitment or his lack thereof. He did answer the spiky questions by ignoring them. (I know a real answer would be more useful to us, but I believe that what most interested MEP were Zuckerberg intents)
    - tscs37 8y ago
      I think they were interested in getting answers from Zuck but with how the session turned out, I think most of them have most of the answers they need even if Mark didn't speak it out loud.
- Y_Y 8y ago
  At least the format and the fact that a lot of the time was taken up asking long-winded questions was the fault of the European Parliament and not Zuck personally. Of course the idea that you can just drag the CEO up to account for whatever grievances you have against the company and hope to get anything out of it seems a bit misguided to me. Looks like more of a PR exercise.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
    > Of course the idea that you can just drag the CEO up to account for whatever grievances you have against the company and hope to get anything out of it seems a bit misguided to me. Well, we have to restore the long-forgotten idea of responsibility. The CEO is legally responsible for any wrongdoings of the company. He should also be morally responsible for all unethical activities. But Zuck's defense strategy so far is "I see nothing wrong".
    - Cthulhu_ 8y ago
      That's because the ethics of what Facebook (and by extension, all online companies) do is a relatively new question and business model. Morally questionable maybe, but it's taken e.g. the EU over ten years to finally start realizing what's going on - bit too late if you ask me. Moral grey area, and legally anything happening to actual Facebook users - who agreed to the terms & conditions - is fine. The non-facebook users (and by extension, anyone being picked up by any analytics tooling or other 3rd party) is a different matter however.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        it's taken e.g. the EU over ten years to finally start realizing what's going on The Data Protection Directive is from 1995. The GDPR is only an extension and reformulation of it. For example, the existing law already killed the so-called Safe Harbor that US companies had to move data to the US[1], and forced FB to start providing copies of the data they hold to EU citizens[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Privacy_Principles#Citizen_complaint_about_Facebook_data_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Priv... [2] http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Get_your_Data_/get_your_data_.html http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Get_your_Data_/get_your_data...
  - tajen 8y ago
    That’s what I thought about both US Congress and EU. The GDPR on the other hand, is more effective (albeit constraining).
  - 8y ago
- melicerte 8y ago
  Just to be exact, I think the MEP you quoted is Guy Verhofstadt[1], who is of Belgian nationality. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Verhofstadt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Verhofstadt
  - zaarn 8y ago
    Yeah, I was reading it this morning and wasn't certain which of them said that or if I heard it elsewhere in a chat. It's imo a good point and I really hope that the EU gets nasty with FB if they abuse their monopoly any further (or puts up steps to remove the monopoly as with IE (though I don't think the IE case really did much))
icebraining 8y ago
There's some irony in getting the Oath panel forcing me to consent to their tracking (in apparent violation of the GDPR) before showing me an article about Facebook's data handling problems. By the way, if you want to read the article without agreeing to their stuff, stop the page load after the article shows up. https://guce.oath.com/collectConsent?brandType=nonEu&.done=https%3A%2F%2Ftechcrunch.com%2F2018%2F05%2F22%2Fzuckerberg-didnt-make-any-friends-in-europe-today%2F%3Fguccounter%3D1&sessionId=3_cc-session_7f55c603-579b-47ea-b95e-ba039809db14&lang=&inline=false https://guce.oath.com/collectConsent?brandType=nonEu&.done=h...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- blowski 8y ago
  Why would that violate GDPR?
  - bryanrasmussen 8y ago
    you're not allowed to say usage of an application/service is conditional on accepting data collection.
    - Tharkun 8y ago
      I still don't see why not. Maybe it's what GDPR says, but it's wrong and I can't see this being enforced. If data collection is the "payment" for using the "service", you have two choices: you don't pay and don't use the service, or you pay up. This is like saying a business can't make usage of a service conditional to payment.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        "In the EU, personal information cannot be conceived as a mere economic asset: according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the processing of personal data requires protection to ensure a person's enjoyment of the right to respect for private life and freedom of expression and association". https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/16-09-23_bigdata_opinion_en.pdf https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/16-09-23_...
gesman 8y ago
>> So while Facebook’s contract change for international users looks largely intended to shrink its legal liabilities under GDPR, it’s possible the change will open up another front for individuals to pursue strategic litigation in the coming months. Most definitely. Too much at stake.
patkai 8y ago
Zuckerberg is a very rational and collected person, so if he didn't make friends then he didn't want to make friends. It also implies the actual significance of the EU.
known 8y ago
FB is perfect example for monopoly abuse
- sparkling 8y ago
  How so?
- ericdykstra 8y ago
  Having a lot of customers isn't a monopoly.
  - matteuan 8y ago
    Having the great majority of the customers IS a monopoly. And also trying to buy the rest is (e.g. instagram, whatsapp).
    - repolfx 8y ago
      But then every firm that created a new product or new product category would be immediately illegal. That's why monopolies aren't illegal, not even in the EU. They have to engage in abuse to create or maintain a monopoly. But Facebook hasn't done that. Buying your competitors is not abuse of market position, they willingly joined forces.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  Do explain. Also, unlike e.g. Intel who got a huge fine from the EU for price deals with OEMs, Facebook didn't use dirty tricks to gain market share.
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    Lying about their capabilities and intentions when buying WhatsApp doesn't count?
teekert 8y ago
Well, he made one friend [0], poor lady. [0] https://twitter.com/ceciliawikstrom/status/998984689460359169 https://twitter.com/ceciliawikstrom/status/99898468946035916...
- siberianbear 8y ago
  I feel much more sorry for the citizens of Sweden than I do for that "poor lady" who made a point of looking like Zuckerburg's tool. If Cecilia Wikström was my elected representative, I'd start investigating how to expatriate.
  - teekert 8y ago
    She is clearly pretty naive but that grilling is fairly harsh imho. At least on twitter she seems to have become the symbol of how the entire group of EU politicians messed up.
teekert 8y ago
We should be pissed at Antonio Tajani (President of the European Parliament since January 2017) who set up the hearing such that Zuckerberg could cherry pick his favorite questions and answer only those.
a_imho 8y ago
He is clearly asking for it.
weinzierl 8y ago
Most press I’ve read so far in Europe is largely neutral or positive about Zuckerberg but very negative about the procedings, the parliament and conduct of the representatives. This is unusual but in my option justified. Here is one particularly devastating article (Google Translate): https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://m.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/anhoerung-von-mark-zuckerberg-im-europaparlament-wird-zum-desaster-a-1209003.html&xid=17259,15700022,15700124,15700126,15700149,15700168,15700173,15700186,15700189,15700191,15700201,15700205&usg=ALkJrhj5TGVc6OHF7EGSjd6pI3U22GQNmg https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...
- FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
  Looking at the Dutch media it's the complete opposite of what you say. It's mostly about Zuckerberg not saying much, to the frustration of the members of parliament.
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    Well, they also state how odd it was how the proceedings were conducted, what with Zuckerberg being able to pick which questions to answer.
  - scaryclam 8y ago
    Same here in the UK. Nothing positive about Zuckerberg so far, so I'm not sure what media the parent is reading.
    - skrebbel 8y ago
      > I'm not sure what media the parent is reading. Um, Der Spiegel apparently.
      - zaarn 8y ago
        SPON would be the only outlet that framed the story that way tbh.
ericdykstra 8y ago
If anything, this kind of regulation helps companies like Facebook keep their "monopoly", because it raises the monetary cost of starting a competitor. A number of smaller services and games have shut down due to increased cost of compliance, even for companies that don't have any privacy issues.
- adrianN 8y ago
  What alternative do you propose? The free market obviously fails to address privacy issues, I don't see how anything besides stricter regulation can help the affected people here.
  - ericdykstra 8y ago
    I'm not a policymaker, but GDPR seems overly-reactionary, over-reaching, and not well thought-out. I think the negative unintended consequences are likely much greater than however much it actually protects the privacy of individuals (which I don't think will be much at all).
    - hvidgaard 8y ago
      GDPR is mostly a regulation that was a directive (DPD) before. If you handled data responsible before and didn't do shady stuff with it, there is little extra to do to be GDPR compliant.
      - taysic 8y ago
        Except if you had targeted advertising you now need to allow users to use the same service without targeting. (ie 'without detriment')
    - Drakim 8y ago
      I don't think GDPR is flawless, but at some point if we don't do anything, privacy violations are going to become so common place and so entrenched in the online economy that we can't fix it anymore. At that point, the discussion would be all about all the "jobs we would destroy" and "businesses opportunities we would shut down!", and heavy lobbying would make sure it gets nowhere.
sparkling 8y ago
The EU and its officials are a joke. I cringe when these EU bureaucrats act like they are going to "get tough" on US businesses and the Trump administration. They lack digital sovereignty and nation state sovereignty. Local and federal EU agencies continue to depend on Microsoft and other US tech giants. They didn't even manage to unveil the NSA wiretapping, to this day still not a single person or company has been charged with wiretapping Germanys biggest internet exchange hub (DeCIX). They rage about US tax cuts and tech companies using tax loopholes while doing nothing about the greatest tax haven on earth located within their own borders: Luxembourg. The EU is a joke and i sincerely hope it falls apart soon.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Other than being politics as usual (which are a joke because politicians are not equipped for dealing with complex issues other than public relations)... If EU died, who do you think would take over and why do you think they'd be any better? US has problems of its own with "digital sovereignty" as it allowed China to take over most of manufacturing. Russia is saddled with social debts and social warfare. EU nation states on their own can't do nothing - the business mostly goes to "where value is". (Just look at what is happening in Romania - the question is, how long can they keep it up.) As for the tax haven, the new regulations in quite a few baton states of the EU now require paying tax in the country where business is done, not registered. Obviously companies try to dodge this as much as they can.
  - adventured 8y ago
    > US has problems of its own with "digital sovereignty" as it allowed China to take over most of manufacturing. US manufacturing output is at an all-time high. Presently manufacturing in the US is booming, and the US is the #2 nation in manufacturing. I'm guessing that you're referring to the myth that China stole away all US manufacturing. That didn't happen. What did happen is vast productivity gains in US manufacturing have eliminated millions of manufacturing jobs. Real manufacturing output per US manufacturing worker increased by 4x from just 1980 to 2010 for example.
  - repolfx 8y ago
nodesocket 8y ago
How is TechCrunch still making the front page of HN? They are the masters of incendiary and polarizing "news" with the only goal to generate "outrage" and clicks and thus revenue. Hacker News audience still eats it up I guess. Have we not learned anything by exposing the Russian mind-warfare ads that targeted US citizens? They played both-sides, with the goal of polarization, destabilization, and control. The same can be attributed to media such as TechCrunch, just with less lofty goals that of Russia.. Money.
- zerostar07 8y ago
  TC is fine
thebradbain 8y ago
If worst comes to worst and EU tries to break up Facebook — and it seems likely they might — what would be Facebook’s best path forward? Theoretically, would it send a stronger signal to US regulators if Facebook simply shut down all operation in the EU? A pop up message to all EU citizens along the lines of “You may no longer access Facebook from within the EU due to X Y and Z from your government. As such, all of your data is unavailable for download and no longer subject to GDPR privacy regulations.” Would that be safer for Facebook in protecting its child companies (which presumably make up a large part of its value) in the US as an effective way to grandstand? Eventually the EU would have to come up with a compromise solution then, too, right? I can’t imagine everyday citizens being happy with the EU if they perceive they’ve blocked them from Facebook. I’m not saying I would be on Facebook’s side (I definitely wouldn’t), but the sheer scale of Facebook as a global company makes me question the effectiveness of current antitrust law. I’ve never seen a trade war between a company and a government. And I don’t want to.
- phicoh 8y ago
  Just my impression: if this was Google, then yes. It is very hard to replace Google at this point in time. Facebook is on its way out. Due to the network effect, Facebook will stay relevant for a long time. But if Facebook would leave the EU then it wouldn't take long for other social networks to take its place. Facebook is relevant because everybody is on Facebook. Not because it is such a great service. Personally, I am way more worried about Google.
  - adam-_- 8y ago
    That network effect can't be underestimated. In the olden days of a new social network every other week the percentage of my friends and family on each social network (including Myspace, the most dominant) was relatively low, so the pain of switching was low. Now the percentage on Facebook is extremely high and I don't even know what an alternative would be. Lots of friends and family are on Whatsapp, quite a lot of people use Instagram but beyond that... there's very little uptake in any other heavily used social network. And of course, they're both owned by Facebook anyway. So, for me at least, to say Facebook is on the way out, is something I cannot agree with.
falcon620 8y ago
Well, he seems to have made one friend: https://twitter.com/CeciliaWikstrom/status/998984689460359169 https://twitter.com/CeciliaWikstrom/status/99898468946035916... (Zuckerberg posing with a Swedish MEP, all smiles.)
Roritharr 8y ago
What struck me as quite interesting was Guy Verhofstadts sideremarks. >"You have to ask yourself how you will be remembered," he said. "As one of the three big internet giants together with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, who have enriched our world and our societies, or on the other hand, the genius that created a digital monster that is destroying our democracies and societies." I imagine you have to talk like this to a guy like Zuckerberg to actually have a chance to get through to him.
- sparkling 8y ago
  "Destroying democracies"? Oh please. Im pretty sure the fall of the EU has little to do with Facebook. Maybe these EU officials should look at their own parlament for blame for once. Perhaps stop robbing your people by artificially devaluing your currency, stop the influx of illegal refugees into the welfare states, stop passing silly laws regulating the form of cucumbers etc. - i could go on and on.
  - ageek123 8y ago
    The issue isn't the (alleged) "fall" of the EU as much as the fact that the EU (and, to a lesser extent, US Congress) wants to shut down platforms that host content that is not aligned with their political viewpoint. None of this hysteria would be happening if 55,000 fewer Americans had voted for Trump (and thus Clinton won), or about a million people who voted for Leave instead had voted for Remain. The obvious partisanship behind the Facebook frenzy is galling and should negate it on its face.
  - flukus 8y ago
    I think that was a reference to the US election interference, not the EU.
    - repolfx 8y ago
      It's both. Verhofstadt is a full-blown European federalist (people who want Europe to be united under a single government and single flag). The fortunes of that dream have not been good lately, and he's looking for people to blame that aren't people like himself. I find it pathetic. Verhofstadt and people like him are one of the things that turned me off the EU and turned me into a Brexit voter. They routinely describe almost anything they don't like as "destroying democracy" or "violating democratic norms" regardless of the facts of the matter. In reality they couldn't give a rats ass about what the people want. Just compare cross-Europe opinion polls asking people what they think the top priorities of government should be (hint: immigration, terrorism) vs what the EU actually chooses to do.
lazyjones 8y ago
He doesn't need friends, he has everyone's private chats...
zerostar07 8y ago
And it didn't seem as he wanted to make any friends either. I'm pretty sure the EC is already drafting regulation or actions against facebook based on this hearing... but i m not sure what facebook plans to do. Perhaps they 'll spin off a separate EU facebook? Go back to US and wall off EU? The EU parliament seems to think that facebook's users are their users but Zucc has not said a word about this.
munchhausen 8y ago
It amazes me how both the hearing at the US senate, and the one at the European Parliament, were marred by an absurdly ineffectual format of the Q&A session. You'd think that having achieved the seemingly hardest part, which was to get Zuck to talk to these bodies at all, care will be taken to make the most of the opportunity. Rather, the complete opposite has taken place. I found it laughable how many times I've heard, during the US Senate session, an injunction addressed to the speaker to wrap it up, as their allotted time was up. The entire thing was rushed as if they were in a hurry to catch a train. Is the Cambridge Analytica fiasco alone not reason enough to keep Zuckerberg in the hot chair for 12 hours over 2 days, if need be, if that is what is ultimately required to get him to actually divulge meaningful information, rather than the sound bites that he happily served up? It seems that these hearings were mostly carried out for show, and rather than actually protect the interests of their constituents, these legislative bodies are content to operate on a purely formalistic level, devoid of any actual meaning. This is global politicians v.2018 for you - fumbling, toothless, woefully out of their depth on crucial issues of our time.
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  As I recall, Zuckerberg didn't provide any answers to the important questions that were actually asked during the hearings, but just said "Sorry" over and over. I think it's pretty clear he had no intention of admitting substantial error on Facebook's part, come what may, and I think it's not likely that the outcome would have changed substantially had the questioning been longer or more intense. Simply put, you can approach being questioned honestly, evasively, or in rare cases switch approach due to what is said to you during the questioning. I think it is well demonstrated that Facebook has chosen to be evasive as a core strategy, so the mere manner of questioning will at best serve to make it more blatant.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  Of course it was for show, that's why it was public. If the politicians wanted real answers to real questions they'd have done the whole thing behind closed doors, they have these little hearings as a group PR exercise. This is hardly unique to 2018, it's pretty much always been like this.
kodablah 8y ago
ZuckBot? "attention-sapping, app gobbling elephant"? What kind of poor excuse for journalism is this? Or is it an op-ed that's just not clearly labeled. Normally I would be disappointed such a terrible article would be so regarded by the community, but no longer. The pitchforks are out, and the more anti-FB you can be in your reporting, the larger the audience. Critical thought had ceased and it's one sided now. What a sham these politicians are in their grandstanding and IMO along with mass media outlets have grossly over exaggerated the harms.
csomar 8y ago
Facebook should be moving to a decentralized, blockchain powered solution as fast as possible. Ethics aside, the regulators are looking to regulate and looks like ready to hammer facebook. I’m pretty sure they’re interested in the data and surveillance Facebook can provide for them. A blockchain solution can give Facebook some time. They have the userbase and the money.
ribchinski 8y ago
In every one of the interviews that I have seen, he is cherry picking answers. He never directly answers them and purposefully makes broad statements that cannot be actually proved. This man created the biggest social media to date, which I thankfully do not use, which spies on its own customers, censors anyone who does not agree with the company's political views and sells personal data to anyone who can make a high bid. I wouldn't be surprised if Putin asked him to compile a list of all of the Russian people who talk poorly of him and Zuck just gave that list to him for a quick buck. EDIT: I also love how he orders the court to stop and then "[He] seemed most uncomfortable at not having his orders instantly carried out."

209 points by laktak 8y ago

From what I gathered on news sources, most of the (german) MEPs are extremely pissed at Zuckerberg in regards to the question answered, the format of the Q&A and the refusal to livestream a real Q&A. He brought up the question about FB's monopoly on the market, stating that there are plenty of competitor products ("we might have a monopoly on cars but there are still planes, bikes and walking!"). Zuck didn't make friends, I'm fairly certain he made enemies in Europe.

vixen99 8y ago
The form of the meeting gave no chance for more than fleeting cross-questioning and ensured that while sharp questions could be asked in plenty Zuckerberg was free to respond with loose generalities and was never put on the spot.
- kiriakasis 8y ago
  That is the point I think, let him show his commitment or his lack thereof. He did answer the spiky questions by ignoring them. (I know a real answer would be more useful to us, but I believe that what most interested MEP were Zuckerberg intents)
  - tscs37 8y ago
    I think they were interested in getting answers from Zuck but with how the session turned out, I think most of them have most of the answers they need even if Mark didn't speak it out loud.
Y_Y 8y ago
At least the format and the fact that a lot of the time was taken up asking long-winded questions was the fault of the European Parliament and not Zuck personally. Of course the idea that you can just drag the CEO up to account for whatever grievances you have against the company and hope to get anything out of it seems a bit misguided to me. Looks like more of a PR exercise.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  > Of course the idea that you can just drag the CEO up to account for whatever grievances you have against the company and hope to get anything out of it seems a bit misguided to me. Well, we have to restore the long-forgotten idea of responsibility. The CEO is legally responsible for any wrongdoings of the company. He should also be morally responsible for all unethical activities. But Zuck's defense strategy so far is "I see nothing wrong".
  - Cthulhu_ 8y ago
    That's because the ethics of what Facebook (and by extension, all online companies) do is a relatively new question and business model. Morally questionable maybe, but it's taken e.g. the EU over ten years to finally start realizing what's going on - bit too late if you ask me. Moral grey area, and legally anything happening to actual Facebook users - who agreed to the terms & conditions - is fine. The non-facebook users (and by extension, anyone being picked up by any analytics tooling or other 3rd party) is a different matter however.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      it's taken e.g. the EU over ten years to finally start realizing what's going on The Data Protection Directive is from 1995. The GDPR is only an extension and reformulation of it. For example, the existing law already killed the so-called Safe Harbor that US companies had to move data to the US[1], and forced FB to start providing copies of the data they hold to EU citizens[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Privacy_Principles#Citizen_complaint_about_Facebook_data_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Priv... [2] http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Get_your_Data_/get_your_data_.html http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Get_your_Data_/get_your_data...
- tajen 8y ago
  That’s what I thought about both US Congress and EU. The GDPR on the other hand, is more effective (albeit constraining).
- 8y ago
melicerte 8y ago
Just to be exact, I think the MEP you quoted is Guy Verhofstadt[1], who is of Belgian nationality. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Verhofstadt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Verhofstadt
- zaarn 8y ago
  Yeah, I was reading it this morning and wasn't certain which of them said that or if I heard it elsewhere in a chat. It's imo a good point and I really hope that the EU gets nasty with FB if they abuse their monopoly any further (or puts up steps to remove the monopoly as with IE (though I don't think the IE case really did much))

icebraining 8y ago

There's some irony in getting the Oath panel forcing me to consent to their tracking (in apparent violation of the GDPR) before showing me an article about Facebook's data handling problems. By the way, if you want to read the article without agreeing to their stuff, stop the page load after the article shows up. https://guce.oath.com/collectConsent?brandType=nonEu&.done=https%3A%2F%2Ftechcrunch.com%2F2018%2F05%2F22%2Fzuckerberg-didnt-make-any-friends-in-europe-today%2F%3Fguccounter%3D1&sessionId=3_cc-session_7f55c603-579b-47ea-b95e-ba039809db14&lang=&inline=false https://guce.oath.com/collectConsent?brandType=nonEu&.done=h...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
blowski 8y ago
Why would that violate GDPR?
- bryanrasmussen 8y ago
  you're not allowed to say usage of an application/service is conditional on accepting data collection.
  - Tharkun 8y ago
    I still don't see why not. Maybe it's what GDPR says, but it's wrong and I can't see this being enforced. If data collection is the "payment" for using the "service", you have two choices: you don't pay and don't use the service, or you pay up. This is like saying a business can't make usage of a service conditional to payment.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      "In the EU, personal information cannot be conceived as a mere economic asset: according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the processing of personal data requires protection to ensure a person's enjoyment of the right to respect for private life and freedom of expression and association". https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/16-09-23_bigdata_opinion_en.pdf https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/16-09-23_...

gesman 8y ago

>> So while Facebook’s contract change for international users looks largely intended to shrink its legal liabilities under GDPR, it’s possible the change will open up another front for individuals to pursue strategic litigation in the coming months. Most definitely. Too much at stake.

patkai 8y ago

Zuckerberg is a very rational and collected person, so if he didn't make friends then he didn't want to make friends. It also implies the actual significance of the EU.

known 8y ago

FB is perfect example for monopoly abuse

sparkling 8y ago
How so?
ericdykstra 8y ago
Having a lot of customers isn't a monopoly.
- matteuan 8y ago
  Having the great majority of the customers IS a monopoly. And also trying to buy the rest is (e.g. instagram, whatsapp).
  - repolfx 8y ago
    But then every firm that created a new product or new product category would be immediately illegal. That's why monopolies aren't illegal, not even in the EU. They have to engage in abuse to create or maintain a monopoly. But Facebook hasn't done that. Buying your competitors is not abuse of market position, they willingly joined forces.
Cthulhu_ 8y ago
Do explain. Also, unlike e.g. Intel who got a huge fine from the EU for price deals with OEMs, Facebook didn't use dirty tricks to gain market share.
- reitanqild 8y ago
  Lying about their capabilities and intentions when buying WhatsApp doesn't count?

teekert 8y ago

Well, he made one friend [0], poor lady. [0] https://twitter.com/ceciliawikstrom/status/998984689460359169 https://twitter.com/ceciliawikstrom/status/99898468946035916...

siberianbear 8y ago
I feel much more sorry for the citizens of Sweden than I do for that "poor lady" who made a point of looking like Zuckerburg's tool. If Cecilia Wikström was my elected representative, I'd start investigating how to expatriate.
- teekert 8y ago
  She is clearly pretty naive but that grilling is fairly harsh imho. At least on twitter she seems to have become the symbol of how the entire group of EU politicians messed up.

teekert 8y ago

We should be pissed at Antonio Tajani (President of the European Parliament since January 2017) who set up the hearing such that Zuckerberg could cherry pick his favorite questions and answer only those.

a_imho 8y ago

He is clearly asking for it.

weinzierl 8y ago

Most press I’ve read so far in Europe is largely neutral or positive about Zuckerberg but very negative about the procedings, the parliament and conduct of the representatives. This is unusual but in my option justified. Here is one particularly devastating article (Google Translate): https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://m.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/anhoerung-von-mark-zuckerberg-im-europaparlament-wird-zum-desaster-a-1209003.html&xid=17259,15700022,15700124,15700126,15700149,15700168,15700173,15700186,15700189,15700191,15700201,15700205&usg=ALkJrhj5TGVc6OHF7EGSjd6pI3U22GQNmg https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...

FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
Looking at the Dutch media it's the complete opposite of what you say. It's mostly about Zuckerberg not saying much, to the frustration of the members of parliament.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  Well, they also state how odd it was how the proceedings were conducted, what with Zuckerberg being able to pick which questions to answer.
- scaryclam 8y ago
  Same here in the UK. Nothing positive about Zuckerberg so far, so I'm not sure what media the parent is reading.
  - skrebbel 8y ago
    > I'm not sure what media the parent is reading. Um, Der Spiegel apparently.
    - zaarn 8y ago
      SPON would be the only outlet that framed the story that way tbh.

ericdykstra 8y ago

If anything, this kind of regulation helps companies like Facebook keep their "monopoly", because it raises the monetary cost of starting a competitor. A number of smaller services and games have shut down due to increased cost of compliance, even for companies that don't have any privacy issues.

adrianN 8y ago
What alternative do you propose? The free market obviously fails to address privacy issues, I don't see how anything besides stricter regulation can help the affected people here.
- ericdykstra 8y ago
  I'm not a policymaker, but GDPR seems overly-reactionary, over-reaching, and not well thought-out. I think the negative unintended consequences are likely much greater than however much it actually protects the privacy of individuals (which I don't think will be much at all).
  - hvidgaard 8y ago
    GDPR is mostly a regulation that was a directive (DPD) before. If you handled data responsible before and didn't do shady stuff with it, there is little extra to do to be GDPR compliant.
    - taysic 8y ago
      Except if you had targeted advertising you now need to allow users to use the same service without targeting. (ie 'without detriment')
  - Drakim 8y ago
    I don't think GDPR is flawless, but at some point if we don't do anything, privacy violations are going to become so common place and so entrenched in the online economy that we can't fix it anymore. At that point, the discussion would be all about all the "jobs we would destroy" and "businesses opportunities we would shut down!", and heavy lobbying would make sure it gets nowhere.

sparkling 8y ago

The EU and its officials are a joke. I cringe when these EU bureaucrats act like they are going to "get tough" on US businesses and the Trump administration. They lack digital sovereignty and nation state sovereignty. Local and federal EU agencies continue to depend on Microsoft and other US tech giants. They didn't even manage to unveil the NSA wiretapping, to this day still not a single person or company has been charged with wiretapping Germanys biggest internet exchange hub (DeCIX). They rage about US tax cuts and tech companies using tax loopholes while doing nothing about the greatest tax haven on earth located within their own borders: Luxembourg. The EU is a joke and i sincerely hope it falls apart soon.

AstralStorm 8y ago
Other than being politics as usual (which are a joke because politicians are not equipped for dealing with complex issues other than public relations)... If EU died, who do you think would take over and why do you think they'd be any better? US has problems of its own with "digital sovereignty" as it allowed China to take over most of manufacturing. Russia is saddled with social debts and social warfare. EU nation states on their own can't do nothing - the business mostly goes to "where value is". (Just look at what is happening in Romania - the question is, how long can they keep it up.) As for the tax haven, the new regulations in quite a few baton states of the EU now require paying tax in the country where business is done, not registered. Obviously companies try to dodge this as much as they can.
- adventured 8y ago
  > US has problems of its own with "digital sovereignty" as it allowed China to take over most of manufacturing. US manufacturing output is at an all-time high. Presently manufacturing in the US is booming, and the US is the #2 nation in manufacturing. I'm guessing that you're referring to the myth that China stole away all US manufacturing. That didn't happen. What did happen is vast productivity gains in US manufacturing have eliminated millions of manufacturing jobs. Real manufacturing output per US manufacturing worker increased by 4x from just 1980 to 2010 for example.
- repolfx 8y ago

nodesocket 8y ago

How is TechCrunch still making the front page of HN? They are the masters of incendiary and polarizing "news" with the only goal to generate "outrage" and clicks and thus revenue. Hacker News audience still eats it up I guess. Have we not learned anything by exposing the Russian mind-warfare ads that targeted US citizens? They played both-sides, with the goal of polarization, destabilization, and control. The same can be attributed to media such as TechCrunch, just with less lofty goals that of Russia.. Money.

zerostar07 8y ago
TC is fine

thebradbain 8y ago

If worst comes to worst and EU tries to break up Facebook — and it seems likely they might — what would be Facebook’s best path forward? Theoretically, would it send a stronger signal to US regulators if Facebook simply shut down all operation in the EU? A pop up message to all EU citizens along the lines of “You may no longer access Facebook from within the EU due to X Y and Z from your government. As such, all of your data is unavailable for download and no longer subject to GDPR privacy regulations.” Would that be safer for Facebook in protecting its child companies (which presumably make up a large part of its value) in the US as an effective way to grandstand? Eventually the EU would have to come up with a compromise solution then, too, right? I can’t imagine everyday citizens being happy with the EU if they perceive they’ve blocked them from Facebook. I’m not saying I would be on Facebook’s side (I definitely wouldn’t), but the sheer scale of Facebook as a global company makes me question the effectiveness of current antitrust law. I’ve never seen a trade war between a company and a government. And I don’t want to.

phicoh 8y ago
Just my impression: if this was Google, then yes. It is very hard to replace Google at this point in time. Facebook is on its way out. Due to the network effect, Facebook will stay relevant for a long time. But if Facebook would leave the EU then it wouldn't take long for other social networks to take its place. Facebook is relevant because everybody is on Facebook. Not because it is such a great service. Personally, I am way more worried about Google.
- adam-_- 8y ago
  That network effect can't be underestimated. In the olden days of a new social network every other week the percentage of my friends and family on each social network (including Myspace, the most dominant) was relatively low, so the pain of switching was low. Now the percentage on Facebook is extremely high and I don't even know what an alternative would be. Lots of friends and family are on Whatsapp, quite a lot of people use Instagram but beyond that... there's very little uptake in any other heavily used social network. And of course, they're both owned by Facebook anyway. So, for me at least, to say Facebook is on the way out, is something I cannot agree with.

falcon620 8y ago

Well, he seems to have made one friend: https://twitter.com/CeciliaWikstrom/status/998984689460359169 https://twitter.com/CeciliaWikstrom/status/99898468946035916... (Zuckerberg posing with a Swedish MEP, all smiles.)

Roritharr 8y ago

What struck me as quite interesting was Guy Verhofstadts sideremarks. >"You have to ask yourself how you will be remembered," he said. "As one of the three big internet giants together with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, who have enriched our world and our societies, or on the other hand, the genius that created a digital monster that is destroying our democracies and societies." I imagine you have to talk like this to a guy like Zuckerberg to actually have a chance to get through to him.

sparkling 8y ago
"Destroying democracies"? Oh please. Im pretty sure the fall of the EU has little to do with Facebook. Maybe these EU officials should look at their own parlament for blame for once. Perhaps stop robbing your people by artificially devaluing your currency, stop the influx of illegal refugees into the welfare states, stop passing silly laws regulating the form of cucumbers etc. - i could go on and on.
- ageek123 8y ago
  The issue isn't the (alleged) "fall" of the EU as much as the fact that the EU (and, to a lesser extent, US Congress) wants to shut down platforms that host content that is not aligned with their political viewpoint. None of this hysteria would be happening if 55,000 fewer Americans had voted for Trump (and thus Clinton won), or about a million people who voted for Leave instead had voted for Remain. The obvious partisanship behind the Facebook frenzy is galling and should negate it on its face.
- flukus 8y ago
  I think that was a reference to the US election interference, not the EU.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    It's both. Verhofstadt is a full-blown European federalist (people who want Europe to be united under a single government and single flag). The fortunes of that dream have not been good lately, and he's looking for people to blame that aren't people like himself. I find it pathetic. Verhofstadt and people like him are one of the things that turned me off the EU and turned me into a Brexit voter. They routinely describe almost anything they don't like as "destroying democracy" or "violating democratic norms" regardless of the facts of the matter. In reality they couldn't give a rats ass about what the people want. Just compare cross-Europe opinion polls asking people what they think the top priorities of government should be (hint: immigration, terrorism) vs what the EU actually chooses to do.

lazyjones 8y ago

He doesn't need friends, he has everyone's private chats...

zerostar07 8y ago

And it didn't seem as he wanted to make any friends either. I'm pretty sure the EC is already drafting regulation or actions against facebook based on this hearing... but i m not sure what facebook plans to do. Perhaps they 'll spin off a separate EU facebook? Go back to US and wall off EU? The EU parliament seems to think that facebook's users are their users but Zucc has not said a word about this.

munchhausen 8y ago

It amazes me how both the hearing at the US senate, and the one at the European Parliament, were marred by an absurdly ineffectual format of the Q&A session. You'd think that having achieved the seemingly hardest part, which was to get Zuck to talk to these bodies at all, care will be taken to make the most of the opportunity. Rather, the complete opposite has taken place. I found it laughable how many times I've heard, during the US Senate session, an injunction addressed to the speaker to wrap it up, as their allotted time was up. The entire thing was rushed as if they were in a hurry to catch a train. Is the Cambridge Analytica fiasco alone not reason enough to keep Zuckerberg in the hot chair for 12 hours over 2 days, if need be, if that is what is ultimately required to get him to actually divulge meaningful information, rather than the sound bites that he happily served up? It seems that these hearings were mostly carried out for show, and rather than actually protect the interests of their constituents, these legislative bodies are content to operate on a purely formalistic level, devoid of any actual meaning. This is global politicians v.2018 for you - fumbling, toothless, woefully out of their depth on crucial issues of our time.

SiempreViernes 8y ago
As I recall, Zuckerberg didn't provide any answers to the important questions that were actually asked during the hearings, but just said "Sorry" over and over. I think it's pretty clear he had no intention of admitting substantial error on Facebook's part, come what may, and I think it's not likely that the outcome would have changed substantially had the questioning been longer or more intense. Simply put, you can approach being questioned honestly, evasively, or in rare cases switch approach due to what is said to you during the questioning. I think it is well demonstrated that Facebook has chosen to be evasive as a core strategy, so the mere manner of questioning will at best serve to make it more blatant.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
Of course it was for show, that's why it was public. If the politicians wanted real answers to real questions they'd have done the whole thing behind closed doors, they have these little hearings as a group PR exercise. This is hardly unique to 2018, it's pretty much always been like this.

kodablah 8y ago

ZuckBot? "attention-sapping, app gobbling elephant"? What kind of poor excuse for journalism is this? Or is it an op-ed that's just not clearly labeled. Normally I would be disappointed such a terrible article would be so regarded by the community, but no longer. The pitchforks are out, and the more anti-FB you can be in your reporting, the larger the audience. Critical thought had ceased and it's one sided now. What a sham these politicians are in their grandstanding and IMO along with mass media outlets have grossly over exaggerated the harms.

csomar 8y ago

Facebook should be moving to a decentralized, blockchain powered solution as fast as possible. Ethics aside, the regulators are looking to regulate and looks like ready to hammer facebook. I’m pretty sure they’re interested in the data and surveillance Facebook can provide for them. A blockchain solution can give Facebook some time. They have the userbase and the money.

ribchinski 8y ago

In every one of the interviews that I have seen, he is cherry picking answers. He never directly answers them and purposefully makes broad statements that cannot be actually proved. This man created the biggest social media to date, which I thankfully do not use, which spies on its own customers, censors anyone who does not agree with the company's political views and sells personal data to anyone who can make a high bid. I wouldn't be surprised if Putin asked him to compile a list of all of the Russian people who talk poorly of him and Zuck just gave that list to him for a quick buck. EDIT: I also love how he orders the court to stop and then "[He] seemed most uncomfortable at not having his orders instantly carried out."