What Did Congress Show Us?
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-04-12 11:19 by Karl Denninger
in Consumer , 151 references Ignore this thread
What Did Congress Show Us?
[Comments enabled]

It's pretty simple, really, and pretty disgusting too.

First, the Senate is by far the more-intelligent group of people.  This is simply due to what you have to accomplish, generally, to get into the Senate.  McCain is the exception (along with a few others) but most Senators are both highly intelligent and well-accomplished.  Yet they asked exactly zero questions among them related to the actual issue with Facebook and other tech companies -- the collection and mining of personal information where it is impossible for the consumer to consent.

The House had two people who went after that -- one being Rep Debbie Dingell and a second being Rep Kathy Castor.  Both Democrats, both hard-left on other issues and both dead right on where the problem is.  Ms. Castor didn't quite get to the root of it (she clearly didn't quite understand the underlying issue), but Debbie Dingell did.  Either of them could have and so could have all those who followed them taken Zuckerpig, bent him over the table and gang*****d him on national TV for what is a clear violation of everyone's expectations and forced him to admit under questioning that his public posturing about "privacy" and such is a bald lie.

So close but so far for the two of them -- and the rest lobbed softballs or even worse, accolades at Zuckerpig.

When it comes to the Senate, however, I must conclude that they intentionally refused to go after Zuckerpig and his firm's rank abuse of individual rights, with the largest issue being tracking of people not on Facebook but rather all over the Internet.

Then there was Cruz (and a handful of other Republicans) who went after Zuckerpig on the ridiculous bias displayed by Facebook (and other web properties -- Twatter anyone?) when it comes to banning or restricting some viewpoints but not others.  Zuckerpig tried to make this all about terrorism (e.g. ISIS propaganda) but he refused to define so-called "hate speech".

The problem is that nobody tries to ban non-objectionable speech - in their mind of whatever constitutes "objectionable."  The question becomes this: While private property owners can constrain speech if there is sufficient market power and lack of reasonable alternatives then you've crossed the boundary into being a public square -- especially if you try to argue that's what your entire purpose is.  Facesucker has done exactly that and Zuckerpig made the claim several times in testimony that the firm exists "to connect people"; well?  Has the firm, along with Google (e.g. Youtube), Twitter and others, reached the saturation and dominance point at which they must be treated as a public square for purposes of free speech?  Good question -- and one that likely needs legislative activity to resolve.

Finally, Zuckerpig, when challenged, couldn't cite any competitors.  If that's not the definition of monopoly..... what is?

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 



 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
User Info What Did Congress Show Us? in forum [Market-Ticker]
Whitehat
Posts: 395
Incept: 2017-06-27

The People's Republic of New York
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
to get to the heart of the matter, they would have to acknowledge what is happening with every other online tracking scheme outside of Facebook. whether it be single pixel objects, sharing buttons, advertising, shared login schemes or the actions of your connectivity provider such as the ISP or cellular carrier, the truth is too dangerous. if any of them had the balls to cross this line it would inevitably lead to a realization of the citizen tracking that occurs in the data industry predating and outside of the web properties. people do know that this is going on, but have become accepting of it through learned helplessness which is probably the root of the millennial disease.

think of it this way. you would crash a major profit center of the internet if this stopped as most social networking firms have no other value. great if you wish to further compromise the already lacking retirement portfolios of a generation. it is mostly about votes.

additionally since this tracking is near ubiquitous simply think of the dirt that these tech firms and the data companies must have regarding these senators and other officials. i know that if you have a friend in the industry or are willing to spend a little money, you can find out anything regarding someone or his family. if one person can do this, imagine what a multi-billion dollar decades old industry can do to dictate terms. let us see what happens in a few years to the two senators who pushed a little too hard or their families. someone gets caught doing something embarrassing. just saying.

the only way that this stops is if we get some canned sunshine here and things are so broken that people do not hold onto what little dignity and consumer lives that they have now. if this ever happens, there are a lot of scores that will be settled and lots of hunting going on. it will be cruel and the dirtbags will realize that their loved ones are in as much danger as themselves.

----------
There are two ways to be rich: One is by acquiring much, and the other is by desiring little.
snow, seasons, distance and dirt roads: SSDD
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Gal. 6:7)
Aztrader
Posts: 7961
Incept: 2007-09-10

Scottsdale, AZ
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
That money corrupts and their softball questions verified this. Betting that Facebook lobbyists were all over the building before the questioning started....
Thorvold
Posts: 218
Incept: 2013-09-12

NY
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Someone once suggested that Senators should be required to wear patches indicating their corporate sponsorships (aka campaign donations) like NASCAR drivers do.

Raul Ilargi had another point of view on government vs. social media in today's Automatic Earth:

"See, if youre an authority, theres nothing you would rather do than to close down those social media that let people spread news that contradicts and/or doubts what you just said, and undermines that privilege. But that also would mean you cant spy on them anymore through social media. A toss-up?!"
Nadavegan
Posts: 113
Incept: 2017-05-03

The South
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@aztrader, they didn't even need lobbyists. Numerous officials openly begged MZ to invest some of his money in their districts. Utterly disgusting.
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ