TexasCHLforum.com

He seems very well coached in avoiding pointed questions.

Of the many concerns the public wants answers to is FB listening in on conversations - in other word 'stealth audio' of sorts...then bingo an ad on your pc regarding your previous conversation pops up. Could be about any subject.

Or, not accepting advertisement for a political conservative candidate, but not turning away the same for a liberal/socialist type.

What grade would you give him for his overall candor/honesty/specificity regarding answers to questions?

His answers to questions in these arenas (of the many) weren't answered to my satisfaction.

Were they for you?

As a trial attorney of over 30 years, I can honestly say he was one of the worst witnesses I've seen on the "stand." I would have loved cross-examining him in front of a jury.

Chas.

I give him a "L" for liar. His lead in about Cambridge Analyitcal completely ignored The Obama 2012 campaign's much larger hack of FB information (probably with the assistance of FB), was praised as genius and they bragged about in 2015 was just the beginning of his lies and obfuscation.

He was lying. Just repeated the same 3 things for two days.

Is he teh CEO of a multi-billion if not trillion dollar company? is he a leftist? could he possibly lose millions or billions after the outcome of this hearing? if the answer to any of these is yes, then my answer is yes. he's lying.

I can't ever watch any hearings. They are too painful with all the stupidity on full display by our elected "leaders." Rush is right, politicians are the lowest common denominator.

Grundy1133 wrote:Is he teh CEO of a multi-billion if not trillion dollar company? is he a leftist? could he possibly lose millions or billions after the outcome of this hearing? if the answer to any of these is yes, then my answer is yes. he's lying.

I predict nothing will happen, FB will continue to do what they do now, the stock will not falter, Zuckerberg will get richer and conservatives will continue to be censored. The whole thing is a sham to make it appear Congress is taking steps to make changes when absolutely no meaningful laws or rules will be put in place. One thing that may change- if he ever has to appear again Zuckerberg will insist he get a chair with taller legs or a lower table so he won't have to have a 4" cushion put on the seat of his chair.

As I said in another post, the FTC fines that he already has for releasing the 80,000,000 plus data would cost over $3 trillion (plus interest). If you or I would have a minor violation of IRS or any government rules they would come after us. Why has Facebook not been fined?

puma guy wrote:

Grundy1133 wrote:Is he teh CEO of a multi-billion if not trillion dollar company? is he a leftist? could he possibly lose millions or billions after the outcome of this hearing? if the answer to any of these is yes, then my answer is yes. he's lying.

I predict nothing will happen, FB will continue to do what they do now, the stock will not falter, Zuckerberg will get richer and conservatives will continue to be censored. The whole thing is a sham to make it appear Congress is taking steps to make changes when absolutely no meaningful laws or rules will be put in place. One thing that may change- if he ever has to appear again Zuckerberg will insist he get a chair with taller legs or a lower table so he won't have to have a 4" cushion put on the seat of his chair.

Abraham wrote:He seems very well coached in avoiding pointed questions.

Of the many concerns the public wants answers to is FB listening in on conversations - in other word 'stealth audio' of sorts...then bingo an ad on your pc regarding your previous conversation pops up. Could be about any subject.

Or, not accepting advertisement for a political conservative candidate, but not turning away the same for a liberal/socialist type.

What grade would you give him for his overall candor/honesty/specificity regarding answers to questions?

His answers to questions in these arenas (of the many) weren't answered to my satisfaction.

Were they for you?

I won't support Zuckerberg's veracity however, I was interested in the particular question dealing with audio and that dialogue caught my attention. Here is the specific question and answer dealing with "stealth audio":

Sen Peters:
Yes or no, does Facebook use audio obtained from mobile devices to enrich personal information about its users?
Zuckerberg: No.
Sen Peters: The ...
Zuckerberg: Well, senator, let me be — let me be clear on this. So you're — you're talking about this conspiracy theory that gets passed around that we listen to what's going on, on your microphone and use that for ads.
Sen Peters: Right.
Zuckerberg: We don't do that. To be clear, we do allow people to take videos on their — on their devices and — and share those. And of course videos also have audio, so — so we do, while you're taking a video, record that and use that to make the service better by making sure that your videos have audio. But I — I mean that, I think, is pretty clear, but I just wanted to make sure I was exhaustive there.

jerry_r60 wrote:

Abraham wrote:He seems very well coached in avoiding pointed questions.

Of the many concerns the public wants answers to is FB listening in on conversations - in other word 'stealth audio' of sorts...then bingo an ad on your pc regarding your previous conversation pops up. Could be about any subject.

Or, not accepting advertisement for a political conservative candidate, but not turning away the same for a liberal/socialist type.

What grade would you give him for his overall candor/honesty/specificity regarding answers to questions?

His answers to questions in these arenas (of the many) weren't answered to my satisfaction.

Were they for you?

I won't support Zuckerberg's veracity however, I was interested in the particular question dealing with audio and that dialogue caught my attention. Here is the specific question and answer dealing with "stealth audio":

Sen Peters:
Yes or no, does Facebook use audio obtained from mobile devices to enrich personal information about its users?
Zuckerberg: No.
Sen Peters: The ...
Zuckerberg: Well, senator, let me be — let me be clear on this. So you're — you're talking about this conspiracy theory that gets passed around that we listen to what's going on, on your microphone and use that for ads.
Sen Peters: Right.
Zuckerberg: We don't do that. To be clear, we do allow people to take videos on their — on their devices and — and share those. And of course videos also have audio, so — so we do, while you're taking a video, record that and use that to make the service better by making sure that your videos have audio. But I — I mean that, I think, is pretty clear, but I just wanted to make sure I was exhaustive there.

I was very interested in this question and answer also. It hasn't happened to me but I have friends that swear the exact scenario Zuck calls a conspiracy theory happened to them. I also believe some members on here have said it happened to them.

I have trouble doubting the personal accounts because it happened when they were discussing something pretty unique to them that they had not looked up or discussed previously. I wish I could remember what they were discussing.

This is one reason I refuse to download their app and only access their mobile website. I don't know I'd this is a 100% guarantee but I like to think it makes it a little more private.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:As a trial attorney of over 30 years, I can honestly say he was one of the worst witnesses I've seen on the "stand." I would have loved cross-examining him in front of a jury.

Chas.

I agree, Charles. I thought he was very evasive. I do not think a Texas jury would like him.

I really enjoyed when Ted Cruz was grilling Zuck. I could watch that for hours.

Zuck's immortal quote about users who trusted him with their data (you'll have to look that up) is really all you need to know about his moral character.

He cheated his business partner Eduardo Saverin and the Winklevoss's to build facebook... so there's that too.

I wonder about Z's mental health.

He seems to stare as a matter of course.

Little to no animation physically or verbally.

Is he autistic, drugged, or just plain old unlikable?

Abraham wrote:I wonder about Z's mental health.

He seems to stare as a matter of course.

Little to no animation physically or verbally.

Is he autistic, drugged, or just plain old unlikable?

He's so wealthy, he doesn't feel he has to give a darn.