racerdave600 said:Facebook doesn't get that information from me in any manner.
Are you sure about that?
FB owns over 50 different companies. If you've ever made a purchase from ANY of them with a credit card, then you may very well have given FB your credit card info.
alfadriver said:If it was not for problems due to big companies, there would not have to be big government.If cars didn't pollute the air, and plants didn't pollute the water, there would be no need for the EPA. If the stock market behaved, there would not be a need for the FTC. If broadcasters behaved there would not need to be any regulations around them.
I could go on.
And if government behaved, was ethical, and acted in the people's best interests, it might actually help. We all know that isn't the case.
In reply to 1988RedT2 :
So, you are suggesting that FaceBook (or any other company) is behaved, ethical, and acts in the people's best interest?
We all know this isn't the case.
SVreX said:In reply to 1988RedT2 :
So, you are suggesting that FaceBook (or any other company) is behaved, ethical, and acts in the people's best interest?
We all know this isn't the case.
Oh, heck no! I'm suggesting that both large corporations AND government are looking to bleed the people dry. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get some work done. So I can pay my taxes! 
1988RedT2 said:alfadriver said:If it was not for problems due to big companies, there would not have to be big government.If cars didn't pollute the air, and plants didn't pollute the water, there would be no need for the EPA. If the stock market behaved, there would not be a need for the FTC. If broadcasters behaved there would not need to be any regulations around them.
I could go on.
And if government behaved, was ethical, and acted in the people's best interests, it might actually help. We all know that isn't the case.
I don't know about you, but I certainly can tell the difference in air quality and water quality than when I was a kid 40 years ago.
No, not everything is done well, but I would suggest that more is done better than people think. Clean air/water, safer cars, electronics that won't electrocute you, loans that are better backed, etc.
There's a lot more good than bad.
1988RedT2 said:SVreX said:In reply to 1988RedT2 :
So, you are suggesting that FaceBook (or any other company) is behaved, ethical, and acts in the people's best interest?
We all know this isn't the case.
Oh, heck no! I'm suggesting that both large corporations AND government are looking to bleed the people dry. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get some work done. So I can pay my taxes!
Sounds a little paranoid.
The fact that government has many, many problems does not make the case that life would be better with some kind of benevolent anarchy.
I reject the concept that government is "looking to bleed people dry". I think government is trying to fix problems, although sometimes they are fixing problems that do not exist, or that they have little to no understanding of.
Life would suck without government. And regulation is one if it's primary roles.
I'd say Alfa and I agree.
Soooooooo, among other things, congress doesn’t give a berkeley about the WEEKLY “oops, we were hacked and now someone might have your cc info” announcements...or dumping tens of BILLIONS of dollars of taxpayer money in fraudulent returns to people who stole SS#’s, but some dipE36 M3 fills out a quiz on facebook, that information is used for marketing, and that’s some sort of national crisis that warrants a bunch of new legislation?
I call BULL$HIT.
Methinks the internet version of the “Patriot Act” is around the corner...you know; to keep us safe from ourselves. <eyeroll>
RX Reven' said:In reply to Ian F :
Another shockingly dumb question from the congress critters…
”If I don’t like GM, I can go buy a Ford…is there a direct alternative to your product”.
Um, I’m pretty berkin’ sure you can’t buy a F150 from GM so no, GM, along with every other company in the history of companies does not offer a "direct alternative" to their competition.
A "direct alternative" in no way shape or form means the same exact product. Tthe F150, Silverado 1500, and Ram 1500 are absolutely all direct alternatives to each other. Similar form, similar function, and similar finance.
In reply to Driven5 :
I would argue that there is no legal, let alone generally recognized definition of “direct alternative”.
I personally agree with you but that doesn’t matter…what matters is that a question was asked that has no formally defensible answer.
As a result, Mr. Zuckerberg was placed in a precarious position…congress people are pretty much all attorneys, they know exactly what they are doing…this was a conniving little gotch-ya question.
Go watch the movie "The Circle" and then think about this again.
This is deeply disturbing on many levels. I was just suspended on FB for 4 days because I wrote a post on a forum that was critical of spending advertising dollars with FB. Not an hour later I was suspended for "content".
And please tell me what the direct alternative to FB is. I'd rather be on there.
In reply to carguy123 :
That’s very scary.
I don’t think there is a direct alternative and I’m not trying to defend Mr. Zuckerberg, I just found congress’s behavior yesterday to be really unattractive.
Waaaaaait wait wait.
Facebook is a FREE SERVICE, right? A berkeleying TRUCK is not a free service.
Do anti-trust laws apply to free services??? (I realize they make money from advertising...there are LOTS of places to advertise, so it’s not like they’ve ‘cornered the market’ on advertising.)
Some of you are talking like your “owed” some free social networking site. If you’ve got a better business model, go start your own! You could be the next “Myspace!”
Isn’t this and every other message board basically a free social media/networking/whatever the berkeley you wanna call it site?
Do instagram, twitter, etc, not fall under “social media” or whatever fb calls themselves?
In reply to carguy123 :
Maybe I misunderstood (seriously,) but you went on facebook(?) and criticized businesses advertising on facebook?
In reply to RX Reven' :
What is the legal definition of "formally defensible"?
poopshovel again said:In reply to carguy123 :
Maybe I misunderstood (seriously,) but you went on facebook(?) and criticized businesses advertising on facebook?
I think he ended up under Zuckerberg's patio for 4 days.
poopshovel again said:Do anti-trust laws apply to free services???
Do anti-trust laws not apply to broadcast television?...Also a 'free' ad revenue based service.
In reply to Driven5 :
Valid point.
Driven5 said:In reply to RX Reven' :
What is the legal definition of "formally defensible"?
Something is formally defensible if it can be objectively measured.
For instance, one could not formally defend “hot” but one could formally defend “boiling”. The difference being that hot is on a continuum whereas boiling represents a phase transition from liquid to gas. “Direct alternative” is on a continuum and as a result, however Mr. Zuckerberg answered the question, one could easily find “experts” that would say he was wrong.
You used the F150 – RAM 1500 – Silverado 1500 as an example of direct alternatives…their towing capacities are not identical…what if I owned a trailer that was within some of the trucks limits but not others?
Direct alternative, at best, requires that you predefine from who’s prospective, under what specific set of circumstances, etc., etc. Again, these are pretty much all attorneys, they know exactly what they are doing...
poopshovel again said:Waaaaaait wait wait.
Facebook is a FREE SERVICE, right? A berkeleying TRUCK is not a free service.
Do anti-trust laws apply to free services??? (I realize they make money from advertising...there are LOTS of places to advertise, so it’s not like they’ve ‘cornered the market’ on advertising.)
Some of you are talking like your “owed” some free social networking site. If you’ve got a better business model, go start your own! You could be the next “Myspace!”
Isn’t this and every other message board basically a free social media/networking/whatever the berkeley you wanna call it site?
Do instagram, twitter, etc, not fall under “social media” or whatever fb calls themselves?
ALL kinds of laws apply to media services that live 100% on advertising. Not just anti-trust (there were restrictions on media companies owning too many different kinds of media in a market), but some very strong advertising rules, as well as some very important election coverage laws.
FB should be held to exactly the same standards as the free TV and Radio we all get.
Heck, the whole accusation that they are throttling conservative speech is banned for local TV stations, as long as it represents who are running for an election. There's a requirement that ads are even from one side to the other.
RX Reven' said:Driven5 said:In reply to RX Reven' :
What is the legal definition of "formally defensible"?
Something is formally defensible if it can be objectively measured.
Is that a legal definition, or your personal definition? Because honestly, I'm not a lawyer, and I couldn't find the legal definition for it in a Google search, and I'm not sure I'd define it the same way personally.
The original question actually being asked though, easily meets your stated definition of "formally defensible" in my opinion. Suckerberg chose to play coy, deflect, and avoid the original question. Your complaint appears to be more in regards to an imperfect example being being provided, and an out-of-context rephrasing of the original question that was attempting to elicit a more direct answer, rather than the question actually being asked.
Of course it was a trap. Regardless of whether you're in a congressional hearing or a courtroom: If the 'other' side is asking you questions, it's always a trap.
RX Reven' said:As a result, Mr. Zuckerberg was placed in a precarious position…congress people are pretty much all attorneys, they know exactly what they are doing…this was a conniving little gotch-ya question.
The way I see it, "gotcha questions" are only a problem for unintelligent people. If you're smart, you can't be "got" by one or be fooled by the response to one.
The only legitimate damage this question could do is press Zuckerburg to either admit that Facebook is a practical monopoly, or plug a competitor on a widely watched broadcast (if there were one...which there isn't, really.)
On that topic, Facebook is only a practical monopoly due to network effects - it's popular because it's popular. They're not doing anything special that anyone else can't do.
Hi Driven5,
I’m not an attorney either but I’ve found our legal system to consistently follow classic principles of logic and reasoning so I’d be very surprised if our judicial system didn’t contain constructs built around the point I made.
Honestly though, I didn’t intently follow the whole session so I didn’t have the context that you just shared which does, in my opinion, matter as it's one thing to prepare a question in advance and another to spontaneously come up with it in frustration after being given the run around.
In reply to RX Reven' :
That's the catch with these congressional hearings though. They're not being held within the Judicial system, so they're not confined to the same restrictions. It's not just this particular congressional hearing...Gotcha questions are pretty much the across-the-board norm for these things.
In reply to poopshovel again :
Yes, people were looking for marketing tips and were considering wasting money, big money, by paying for FB's shotgun approach where no matter what type of targeting you put into place it all falls apart with FB's "everyone is interested unless they tell us different" philosophy.
I simply told them how to get even better results for free. But on a up note, the whole thread is still up, it didn't implode.
You'll need to log in to post.
