4 ms·

If you took Zuckerberg's word for it, you'd be left thinking Facebook had never heard of Palantir.

• koolba 8y ago
  His word in an interview or PR bulletin is one thing. His word during testimony before Congress is another. Out of the entire Zuckerberg / Congress sideshow,m I thought this part stands out as clearly lying to Congress. Not knowing the number of data points isn't out of line (10? 1000? 10000?), but there's no way he doesn't know the term "shadow profiles" in the context of tracking people without Facebook accounts. > Lujan: Facebook has detailed profiles on people who have never signed up for Facebook, yes or no? > Zuckerberg: Congressman, in general we collect data on people who have not signed up for Facebook for security purposes to prevent the kind of scraping you were just referring to [reverse searches based on public info like phone numbers]. > Lujan: So these are called shadow profiles, is that what they’ve been referred to by some? > Zuckerberg: Congressman, I’m not, I’m not familiar with that. > Lujan: I’ll refer to them as shadow profiles for today’s hearing. On average, how many data points does Facebook have on each Facebook user? > Zuckerberg: I do not know off the top of my head.
  • 908087 8y ago
    I was specifically referring to his playing dumb about Palantir during that testimony. I agree that his pretending to be unfamiliar with shadow profiles was one of the more egregious lies presented to congress, though.