The Death of Privacy: Facebook’s Data Problem
Rich Lowry and others miss an important point when they say Facebook doesn’t sell any product (“The Facebook Swindle,” PostOpinion, April 10).
Facebook sells corporate brands access to voluntary, yet often unaware, users.
Facebook also sells its stock — a product that until a few weeks ago just kept rising in price. May it crash fantastically and wipe the smirks off its executives’ faces.
Zuckerburg was lying through his teeth to Congress when he said he didn’t think Facebook was a monopoly.
There are many things you can’t do today if you don’t have Facebook. I can’t even comment on most news Web sites, like the Huffington Post, which reserves comments for Facebook members.
Many businesses have to use Facebook to promote themselves. They have no alternatives. Zuckerberg’s testimony on Facebook looks and sounds a lot like the Salem witch trials.
Who was really being duped by misinformation ads and fake news during the 2016 election? People, for the most part, do not change their stripes when it comes to political viewpoints.
If posts were made by outsiders (Russians?), it is quite normal that those who agreed with the articles or comments would share them. In the wake of the Zuckerberg testimony, I’d love to see Google face a congressional hearing about its policies on users’ information.
Last month, I Googled “Füssen, Germany” (having visited there 50 years ago) just to verify my memory of its location. The very next day, I received an e-mail offer for a package tour of Füssen.
These Web sites monetize individual participation (as is the case with Facebook) and even basic queries on Google.
Zuckerberg’s testimony really has little to do with how his company protects its users’ privacy.
The primary reason for Zuck’s interrogation is that he must atone for helping President Trump “steal the election” with help from the Russians and Cambridge Analytica.
Zuckerberg should ask Congress, “If Hillary Clinton had won the election, would I be sitting here today?”