The prospect of prosecution does that.
āHe bluntly compared tightening internal advertising standards to prior restraint. āWe donāt check what people say before they say it and I donāt think society should want us to,ā Zuckerberg said. āFreedom means you donāt have to ask for permission first.āā Shorter Zuckerberg: feel free to spew your lies on our platform, just so long as you are willing to pay for it, we wonāt stop you
"āI donāt want anyone to use our tools to undermine democracy AGAIN,ā Zuckerberg said
FIFY dickhead
ā¦and people wonder why I refuse to establish a FB account.
If I wanted to know what someone ate for breakfast, lunch and dinner - and where they spent the afternoon, I would go to the attic, open a trunk, and read the diaries of my āspinsterā great-aunts.
Zuckerberg initially lied about Facebookās role in the election which is evidence of a guilty conscience. He must be held responsible for his companyās involvment in the Russian conspiracy to elect Trump.
Iām not First Amendment or privacy expert, but this all seems a bit silly on Facebookās part.
- There surely can be no expectation of privacy for advertisements actually published.
- Likewise, there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy for the customer buying advertising.
- Since the ads have already been published, there is no First Amendment right for Facebook to protect. There is no First Amendment right to dissemination ads in secret.
Facebook is trying to avoid embarrassment. Too late Mark.
So true. Iāll FIFY that little shit even further:
āI donāt want anyone to use our tools to undermine democracy again,ā Zuckerberg said. āBut thatās what we do.ā
If anyone wishes to know, hereās how you delete your FB account:
Pass it on as often as possible.
My guess is that the board had to tell Mark that he canāt get everyone to like him and then he cried in his office for an hour.
Why not run a fact check on it then label it.
I have always thought that FBās success is a delicate bubble which could pop practically overnight. As far as I know, there is nothing special about their product that people couldnāt find elsewhere.
Yes Zuckerberg appears to believe that he is an arm of the government.
You are correct about the expectation of privacy not existing for ads that are actually published - thatās beyond absurd.
And I agree with the rest of the comment. Somebody needs to give this country a course in Constitutional Law. Nobody seems to get the First Amendment.
āthe amount of problematic content that weāve found so far remains relatively small,ā
Who does he think heās fooling? When you try to withhold information, then are forced to turn some over, then finally open the taps youāre announcing to the world something went horribly wrongā¦or horribly right.
Do you have nieces and nephews who say the same thing? Asking for a friend.
My general optimism concerning humanity refuses to accept that Facebook could be more than a passing fad. Iām convinced that a hundred years for now it will be forgotten.
Like you had a fucking choice, Mark.
3,000 ads. $100,000. Do these figures line up, or do they reflect separate but overlapping datasets? Itās hard to believe that someone went along buying a bunch of $33 ad buys. The microtargeting in that effort had to be amazing.
No, no, donāt give Michael Fredericks āNATO fair shareā ad. He will be more deeply touched by āNATO countries not spend enough on militaryā ad.
And then you send the NATO fair share ad to 300 people, and the NATO spend more on military ad to 572 people.
Cāmon. No fucking way. This tranche of 3,000 ads repreents more than $100,000, so weāve moved into new territory here, right?
Yes too bad we had some one who understood Constitutional Law and wasnāt respected, believed, and bedeviled at every turn. I understand from our brethren on the right that some who taught Constitutional Law didnāt really know it and didnāt really have a job.
See how everything works so much better when a non-lawyer gets elected?
More likely itās the knowledge that regulation is on the horizon. They wonāt be able to head it off and will soon have to follow the same rules broadcast mediums have to obey.