5 ms·

Key takeaways: 1. Before Ms. Sandberg’s Senate testimony, Facebook lobbyists pushed lawmakers to refrain from questioning her about privacy, censorship and oth

Key takeaways: 1. Before Ms. Sandberg’s Senate testimony, Facebook lobbyists pushed lawmakers to refrain from questioning her about privacy, censorship and other issues, and to stick to election interference. The committee’s chairman, Senator Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina, was swayed and warned members to stick to the hearing’s planned topic, The Times reported Wednesday. 2. Facebook had also lobbied for the hearing to include a Google emissary of similar rank to Ms. Sandberg. Mr. Burr invited Larry Page, a Google co-founder, but he did not show up. 3. In an email days before the hearing, a Definers employee pressed a Times reporter to write that Facebook was taking the senators’ concerns seriously while Google was irresponsible for skipping the hearing. 4. The day before the hearing, NTK Network reported that Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, had suggested that Google was possibly a monopoly. 5. Those pieces were just two of at least 11 negative items NTK has posted about Google since late March. Facebook really seems butthurt about Google. Instead of learning from Google about being transpernt on how they use user data, they basically dragged Google in the controversy, and I would say they have been pretty successful.

yeukhon 8y ago
“Instead of learning from Google about being transpernt on how they use user data” I am curious evidences of this. Or are you comparing objectively with the two relative to recent events? Then sure. FB’s been very sketchy all this time with little knowing until the whole election interference and Cambridge scandal went public and viral did people pay attention. But thanks for the takeaways.
- dirkgently 8y ago
  Not sure if I understand you here. Google, for all the negative press and bashing they are getting lately, has not hidden what they collect, how they collect. They also do not sell user data (that's not their business model). Sure, they have had their share of issues, but I don't think they are systematic or intentional. They are happy if you want to take your data and go to someone else - they released takeaway tool more than 10 years ago. Fb, on the other hand, never were trustworthy, even before any of the recent scandals became public. They have had history of changing things around that led to users unknowingly expose their details they thought they had locked down, more than once. They have been caught lying to advertisers about clicks and views. But those finer points are lost when they have successfully dragged Google in the mudbath with their smear campaign, irrespective of the scale or intentions at Google.
  - conradev 8y ago
    > Sure, they have had their share of issues, but I don't think they are systematic or intentional. Or Google is just better at staying out of the spotlight: > Disclosure will likely result “in us coming into the spotlight alongside or even instead of Facebook despite having stayed under the radar throughout the Cambridge Analytica scandal”, Google policy and legal officials wrote in a memo obtained by the Journal. It “almost guarantees Sundar will testify before Congress”, the memo said, referring to the company’s CEO, Sundar Pichai. The disclosure would also invite “immediate regulatory interest”. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/08/google-plus-security-breach-wall-street-journal https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/08/google-pl...
  - Puer 8y ago
    > Google, for all the negative press and bashing they are getting lately, has not hidden what they collect, how they collect. I'm curious what led to you to this conclusion and how you define "hide." What about how they were tracking location information even after you turned off location history??
  - zaphod4prez 8y ago
    Uhhh, I'm gonna have to strongly disagree with you about Google being a "good guy" here. For example, did you know that people at Google can read your email [1]? ...And so can literally hundreds of app makers...[2] That to me is about as flagrant and messed up as I can imagine. If you really trust Google with your data, I recommend you investigate their (very) checkered history a bit more. [1]https://www.businessinsider.com/google-is-not-reading-your-gmail-except-in-all-these-cases-2018-7/ https://www.businessinsider.com/google-is-not-reading-your-g... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-allows-app-developers-to-read-peoples-gmails-report-2018-7?r=UK&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/google-allows-app-developers...
ForrestN 8y ago
Just a polite reminder that using "butthurt" to mean "resentful"or "angry" paints a picture that is often homophobic and nearly always making light of rape. In my opinion, we should try not to normalize its use any further.
- ehsanu1 8y ago
  https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/323628/etymology-of-butthurt https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/323628/etymology...
  - ForrestN 8y ago
    This is incorrect. Derivation doesn’t prove usage. http://persephonemagazine.com/2013/01/can-we-please-stop-using-the-term-butthurt/ http://persephonemagazine.com/2013/01/can-we-please-stop-usi...
    - ehsanu1 8y ago
      Does inappropriate adoption of a word necessarily preclude its use in its original form? Example: "autistic". In recent times, this word is sometimes used as an insult, which seems to me to be somewhat offensive to those with the actual syndrome. However, referring to those who do have the syndrome as medically autistic is obviously not offensive. This is a more clear-cut example to make the point that misappropriating a word and giving it secondary connotations in certain contexts does not make the word unfit for use in all cases.
    - spangry 8y ago
      "Essentially, the term is used when someone is upset that someone else has gotten the better or them or beaten them or bested them in some way. That is to say, they dominated them. You know, like when someone is raped." Your source is the blog entry of some self-professed 'angry feminist' making up an etymology and then trying to police everyone's language on that basis. People like this are such insufferable know-it-alls.
- carapace 8y ago
burtonator 8y ago
The issue is that without violating your privacy, Facebook really doesn't have a revenue model.

yeukhon 8y ago

“Instead of learning from Google about being transpernt on how they use user data” I am curious evidences of this. Or are you comparing objectively with the two relative to recent events? Then sure. FB’s been very sketchy all this time with little knowing until the whole election interference and Cambridge scandal went public and viral did people pay attention. But thanks for the takeaways.

dirkgently 8y ago
Not sure if I understand you here. Google, for all the negative press and bashing they are getting lately, has not hidden what they collect, how they collect. They also do not sell user data (that's not their business model). Sure, they have had their share of issues, but I don't think they are systematic or intentional. They are happy if you want to take your data and go to someone else - they released takeaway tool more than 10 years ago. Fb, on the other hand, never were trustworthy, even before any of the recent scandals became public. They have had history of changing things around that led to users unknowingly expose their details they thought they had locked down, more than once. They have been caught lying to advertisers about clicks and views. But those finer points are lost when they have successfully dragged Google in the mudbath with their smear campaign, irrespective of the scale or intentions at Google.
- conradev 8y ago
  > Sure, they have had their share of issues, but I don't think they are systematic or intentional. Or Google is just better at staying out of the spotlight: > Disclosure will likely result “in us coming into the spotlight alongside or even instead of Facebook despite having stayed under the radar throughout the Cambridge Analytica scandal”, Google policy and legal officials wrote in a memo obtained by the Journal. It “almost guarantees Sundar will testify before Congress”, the memo said, referring to the company’s CEO, Sundar Pichai. The disclosure would also invite “immediate regulatory interest”. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/08/google-plus-security-breach-wall-street-journal https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/08/google-pl...
- Puer 8y ago
  > Google, for all the negative press and bashing they are getting lately, has not hidden what they collect, how they collect. I'm curious what led to you to this conclusion and how you define "hide." What about how they were tracking location information even after you turned off location history??
- zaphod4prez 8y ago
  Uhhh, I'm gonna have to strongly disagree with you about Google being a "good guy" here. For example, did you know that people at Google can read your email [1]? ...And so can literally hundreds of app makers...[2] That to me is about as flagrant and messed up as I can imagine. If you really trust Google with your data, I recommend you investigate their (very) checkered history a bit more. [1]https://www.businessinsider.com/google-is-not-reading-your-gmail-except-in-all-these-cases-2018-7/ https://www.businessinsider.com/google-is-not-reading-your-g... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-allows-app-developers-to-read-peoples-gmails-report-2018-7?r=UK&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/google-allows-app-developers...

ForrestN 8y ago

Just a polite reminder that using "butthurt" to mean "resentful"or "angry" paints a picture that is often homophobic and nearly always making light of rape. In my opinion, we should try not to normalize its use any further.

ehsanu1 8y ago
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/323628/etymology-of-butthurt https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/323628/etymology...
- ForrestN 8y ago
  This is incorrect. Derivation doesn’t prove usage. http://persephonemagazine.com/2013/01/can-we-please-stop-using-the-term-butthurt/ http://persephonemagazine.com/2013/01/can-we-please-stop-usi...
  - ehsanu1 8y ago
    Does inappropriate adoption of a word necessarily preclude its use in its original form? Example: "autistic". In recent times, this word is sometimes used as an insult, which seems to me to be somewhat offensive to those with the actual syndrome. However, referring to those who do have the syndrome as medically autistic is obviously not offensive. This is a more clear-cut example to make the point that misappropriating a word and giving it secondary connotations in certain contexts does not make the word unfit for use in all cases.
  - spangry 8y ago
    "Essentially, the term is used when someone is upset that someone else has gotten the better or them or beaten them or bested them in some way. That is to say, they dominated them. You know, like when someone is raped." Your source is the blog entry of some self-professed 'angry feminist' making up an etymology and then trying to police everyone's language on that basis. People like this are such insufferable know-it-alls.
carapace 8y ago

burtonator 8y ago

The issue is that without violating your privacy, Facebook really doesn't have a revenue model.