In theory yes. It would be entertaining.

The reality is, he'd be screwed.

Nor can we discount FB isn't a favored front of sorts for various "data collection agencies."

p.s. I find it (sadly) funny how so many are upset with ZM and FB, but are completely unaware about Snowden, Obama's expansion of the Patriot Act, etc.

FB is the obvious scapegoat. It currently has to play the role, even if it hates doing so. But for how long?

This is a good explanation of why this hearing was so poorly designed such that nothing could be discovered. I highly doubt it was accidental.

What type of discovery would you like to make? It seems to me that whatever fb has they control and do with as they please and have the money for lobbyists and lawyers to corporate-splain their actions away and pay the occasional fine (cost of doing business). I'm having a hard time understanding why any of what is known is at all a surprise to someone who understands tech.

>I'm having a hard time understanding why any of what is known is at all a surprise to someone who understands tech.

The vast majority of FB users don't understand tech, and that's the root problem.

These hearings aren't for technical minded people. If they were, there would be technical minded people asking the questions.

But still, what type of "discovery" is being hoped for?

Showing how billions of people's psychological profiles can be algorithmically weaponized against them would be highly informative I would think. That way the average user would understand the types of things they are "consenting" to when they write a blank check for their personal information.

If a qualified person was asking the questions, the public would then know the reality of the situation, as well as get a decent look into how honest Mr. Zuckerberg is.

I suspect what we watched was fairly well scripted theater, right down to the humiliating booster seat as well as the talking points cheat sheet that he "accidentally" let a reporter get a picture of. This wasn't about discovery, truth, or justice, it is about shaping public opinion.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe what comes out of this will be some reasonable regulations that the technical community will more or less agree do in fact provide substantial improvements to privacy of individuals. I'd happily take the other side of that bet though.

I am of the opinion that if we let FB continue in its reckless treatment of its users data, people will eventually flock to a better platform when one emerges. UseNet/IRC were much better social platforms for privacy, but the ease of use/convenience much worse.

I am glad of this whole debacle simply because people won't act like I'm a freak anymore just because I won't use FB.

"This wasn't about discovery, truth, or justice, it is about shaping public opinion."

Agreed. And the irony completely stomps on the absurdity meter.

I should have been more clear: How long before FB pushes back? And what might that look like? Is Congress capable of regulating something like FB? They can't solve immigration / DACA.

Why would FB push back in the first place? Assuming their bottom line is not being hurt, they 'll be glad to be best buddies with the congress.

Ego. And power. Those drive a lot of history.

I would be shocked if the government was not a major customer of FB.

Per (the book) Dragnet Nation, there is plenty of data being sold. And yes, not all buyers are the private sector.

If you think of what we do know, the unknowns are likely 10x as freightening.