Posted on 04/12/2018 1:08:38 PM PDT by Rummyfan
There were many interesting moments in Mark Zuckerberg's testimony before Congress - starting with the gazillionaire child-man's decision to follow Larry Kudlow's advice and eschew his usual garb for a suit and tie. "I'm tired of that t-shirt, hoodie stuff," remarked Larry. "The guy's running one of the largest corporations of the world, for heaven's sake." This was reported by the leftie lads at ThinkProgress under the headline "Trump official rants about Zuckerberg's clothes".
I'm with Larry on this one. One of the reasons my old boss Conrad Black was resented by large sections of the proletariat (and, eventually, a decisive sliver of his Chicago jury) was that he looked like the masses' idea of a rich man, bespoke and luxuriously upholstered. I don't believe I've ever seen Conrad out in public in a top hat, but he was wearing one metaphorically. Like 19th century robber-baron cartoons and the Monopoly man, he hewed to time-honored preconceptions of the plutocrat. Zuckerberg does not. He is, as Larry noted, a "chief executive" of a "corporation", but he talks of it as if he's running a kindly charity - his customers are "the community", and all he does is "connect" them, a word that means harvesting your personal information as Planned Parenthood harvests your body parts. Streamlining traditional business models by discreetly transforming the customer into the product has proved infinitely more lucrative than making widgets. But it is necessary to be somewhat coy about this, and, if you think at this stage that the hoodie is not a consciously selected prop in this strategy, I've a bridge-building community-outreach social-media data-mining operation in Brooklyn to connect you with.
(Excerpt) Read more at steynonline.com ...
It was a DOG & PONY SHOW, orchestrated, choreographed and scripted down to the tiniest detail..........................
Mark Steyn is dead wrong on this point. Zuckerberg's customers are not "the community". His customers are his advertisers.
"The community" of which he speaks is the product being sold to his customers.
Correction: “Mark Zuckerberg is dead wrong on this point.”
True. The FBookers are the product, and they are sold to the highest bidder..............
I see no constitutional grounds or authority for Congress to subpoena and question Zuck about his private enterprise. NONE of the feds freaking business.
A lot of people around here think Zuck is a threat. They’re missing the 800 lb gorilla in the room - the mostly unconstitutional $4 trillion government who ignores constitutional limitations, and thus, and threatens our lives and freedoms.
You are misquoting Stein. Stein is referring to how Zuckerberg portrays himself not what he actually does.
How about if he is actively colluding with the government to censor you, shape your view of reality, and keep you from understanding what is being done, by repeatedly lying to you?
It is very close to bribing congressmen to pass the laws you wish. Do you find any Constitutional grounds to prohibit that?
If not, why not?
As in the rest of the sentence:
“ connect”...“a word that means harvesting your personal information as Planned Parenthood harvests your body parts.”
I’d say that sums it up pretty viscerally.
its a sign of respect to wear a suit - we may do it for customers, funerals, bosses, colleagues, etc...
If he wants to impress government people who can really screw him over, he’d best show some respect.
I wonder if Zuckerberg noticed the willingness of some of those leftist congress critters preparing to clamp down hard on the internet. Several asked for blanket endorsement of legislation the are introducing. People that are clueless.
They didn’t subpoena him and he wasn’t under oath. If he didn’t want to speak to Congressional committees he didn’t have to go.
The Constitution exclusively forbids bribery against government officials, not private parties. Why aren't those implicated officials up in front of Congress answering questions?
Why aren't you outraged, not by private enterprise looking for free handouts (it's really their job), but by your corrupt government officials who forcefully take your money and then commit endless malfeasance?
I’d have more respect for Zuckerberg if he DID show up in front of the Senate in a hoody...
"Eventually, Mark Zuckerberg needs to testify; he needs to be subpoenaed if he won’t do it voluntarily," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/20/facebook-congress-mark-zuckerberg-426132
That coercion is absolutely uncalled for in this unconstitutional federal inquiry into Zuck's private business. Congress is freaking becoming like the Grand Inquisitor.
Zuck and the NSA are true lovers—cannot be separated as long as they both shall live.
Rush suggests that this whole Dog and Pony show has to do with Net Neutrality - that they cannot get it through the SEC, so they want to clamp some chains on the Internet ‘so we can be more like the EU’ and of course the Free Press can be stifled.
I do like the way Ted Cruz is skewering him, though. And I do think he’s got some Zombie thing going.
Right but what's the difference to you and I?
You may voluntarily choose to spend nothing on Zuck and FB any time you want.
But you can't refuse to contribute to the NSA and the feds. They will forcefully take your money and where possible, your freedom. Today Zuck, tomorrow you, and they won't explain themselves.
When I first read of the t-shirt and public desk favored by this pirate, my first thought was: communist.
He is just one of the people - until you have outlived your usefulness to him and have to be unpersoned.
If he wants to impress government people who can really screw him over, he’d best show some respect.
Ehhhhh...
Dee Snider might REALLY disagree with ya on that.
IMHO, one of the greatest statements before Congress *ever*.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.