4 ms·

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 an

by 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))

by zaarn 8y ago

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))