Posted on 04/10/2018 2:00:32 PM PDT by Jim W N
See link
https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/videos/1043586805807271/UzpfSTIxMzc1MzI0NDgwOjEwMTU2MjUwMzE0NTM0NDgx/?sk=h_chr
Yep, coached by an army of lawyers
Arguing that the free market can provide an alternative to Facebook, while possible, is extremely EXTREMELY difficult. And I say that as a free market advocate myself.
If the original AT&T prior to the breakup had the power to monitor telephone conversations and choose who got to use its service based on political opinion of the customers, they wouldn't have gotten away with it. If they COULD, well... does anyone really think that establishing a competing utility would be a viable option?
Facebook has become a monopoly and worse. It is effectively a cyber superpower nation state with a power-mad geek as its authoritarian tyrant who in some form or another is affecting the lives of EVERYONE.
Time to bust Facebook up.
Fake. He met with politicians ahead of this and is not under oath.
It’s all for show.
Lets Keep this in mind — via zerohedge
Since 2007, the social media giant has contributed a cumulative $381,000 to 46 of the 55 members on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which will hear from Zuckerberg on Wednesday.
While the average committee member received between $6,750 and $6,800, Committee Chair Greg Walden (R-OR) received $27,000, and top ranking Democrat Frank Pallone of New Jersey received $7,000 from Facebook.
Rep. Anna Eschoo (D-CA), whose district is adjacent to Facebook headquarters and home to many Facebook employees, received the most from Facebook at $55,150 since 2007. Eschoo narrowly lost a battle with Pallone for ranking Democrat position on the committee in the 2014 election.
Meanwhile, a Roll Call report reveals that two Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have nearly $100,000 invested in shares of Facebook – with Democratic Reps. Joe Kennedy of MA and Kurt Schrader of OR owning approximately $80,000 and $15,000 respectively.
Twenty-eight members listed stock in the social media giant, according to Roll Call’s Wealth of Congress project. Among them, Democratic Reps. Kurt Schrader of Oregon and Joseph P. Kennedy III of Massachusetts sit on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, while Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island sits on Senate Judiciary.
Both panels, along with Senate Commerce, invited Zuckerberg to appear before them after reports that Cambridge Analytica, a British big data firm, obtained access to private information of millions of Facebook users under questionable circumstances. Cambridge Analytica reportedly incorporated the data in ad-targeting tools used by political campaigns including President Donald Trump’s winning 2016 bid.
…
“Congressman Kennedy’s stock holdings do not influence his work in Congress,” his office said in response to questions from Roll Call about his Facebook shares. -Roll Call
Ten Democratic members of the Committee, including Kennedy, sent a letter last Thursday to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to commend the agency on its investigation into Facebook.
Meanwhile House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi owns at least $500,000 shares of Facebook through her husband, while Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul reported at least $1 million in Facebook stock and around $30,000 in 2016 capital gains through his wife and child.
Pelosi’s office noted “These investments are Mr. Pelosi’s not Leader Pelosi’s. Leader Pelosi plays no role in this investment and has no stock investments of her own,” an aide said.
That’s not all…
Illinois Rep. Brad Schneider has at least $200,000 in the company through his wife’s IRA, while Rhode Island Rep. Jim Langevin, a fellow Democrat, holds stock worth at least $115,000 and had capital gains of more than $5,000, according to his 2016 financial disclosure. Ohio Republican Rep. James B. Renacci also owns at least $150,000 worth of Facebook stock.
Several lawmakers with holdings in the company say they recognize that new policies on social media oversight are needed after the latest developments. -Roll Call
Several other members of Congress own Facebook as well – however one Senator, Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) wants nothing to do with Facebook, and has announced that he will be selling his shares.
According to Roll Call, here are all the members of Congress who listed Facebook holdings in their 2016 financial disclosures, along with the minimum worth of their stocks and of any capital gains or dividends.
Rep. Joyce Beatty — $15,001 / $5,001 dividends
Rep. Steve Chabot — $15,001
Rep. James R. Comer — $1,001
Rep. K. Michael Conaway — $0* / $2,501 capital gains
Rep. Carlos Curbelo — $1,001
Rep. Mike Gallagher — $0*
Rep. John Garamendi — $1,001
Rep. Josh Gottheimer — $16,002
Sen. John Hoeven — $50,001
Rep. Mike Kelly — $15,001
Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III — $81,004
Rep. Ro Khanna — $2,002
Rep. Jim Langevin — $115,002 / $5,001 capital gains
Rep. Brenda Lawrence — $15,001
Rep. Alan Lowenthal — $15,001
Rep. Roger Marshall — $0* / $1 capital gains
Rep. Michael McCaul — $1,000,002 / $30,002 capital gains
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — $500,001
Rep. James B. Renacci — $150,002 / $5,001 capital gains
Sen. Pat Roberts — $1,001 / $201 capital gains
Rep. Tom Rooney — $15,001
Rep. Francis Rooney — $1,001
Rep. Brad Schneider — $200,002
Rep. Kurt Schrader — $15,001
Rep. Lamar Smith — $1,001 / $1 capital gains
Rep. Tom Suozzi — $15,001
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse — $31,003
Rep. John Yarmuth — $1,001
Liked by 3 people
“And he should stop prefixing each sentence with ‘Senator’...”
He just made me think of that obnoxious kid in the tv auto insutance ad confronting his parents in bed about his supposedly miniscule auto infraction. Such as
Senator, You are so perceptive to have thought of that astounding question. I’m so happy to have the privilege and opportunity to answer.
4 weeks without the car!!!
Ted Cruz raked him over the coals for their clamp down on conservative speech!
Ted Cruz was upset over Facebook clamp down on free speech. He wasn’t that much interested in the data sharing..
Where does the Constitution authorize the feds to do that?
Ted Cruz should be raking CONGRESS over the coals for their unconstitutional adventures into subpoenaing and questioning an entrepreneur about his enterprise. NONE of the feds freaking business. If Cruz was the constitutionalist he claims to be, he would have done just that. Instead we get these corrupt career politicians grandstanding. That’s all this is, a dog-and-pony show.
Ted Cruz has NO constitutional authority to question how an enterprise may choose to run their business. That is NONE of the feds business. Cruz is not the constitutionalist he claims to be. IMO, he is a political opportunist.
Nobody bothered to ask why his employees were PART of the 2012 Obama campaign and gave him unlimited access to the entire database.
Furthermore, if he is censoring conservatives, and advocating for democrats, that makes him a political action group and there is an entire body of law that comes into play.
Twitter is even worse. If social media wants to be treated like a business, they may not decline customers based on political points of view. If they want to be an political action committee, they can follow those laws and regulations.
Time to tear them down. Can anyone imagine if Verizon announced it would not sell phones to the Trump 2020 committee? Or if American Airlines refused to fly campaign staff using a Trump 2020 credit card?””
Thank you sir. An ounce of common sense analysis can go far here.
Lawyers (>politicians, judges, DOJ ops) are America’s greatest threat, followed by pubic school teachers. (IMHO, of course.)””
Absolutely!!!!!
Did he ask about people posting in support of their God-given, constitutionally guaranteed second amendment rights? Or is that promoting violence?
How about people who oppose open borders and want the laws enforced and illegal aliens deported? Is that hate speech?
How about quoting the bible? Hate speech against homos, transexuals, abortionists, etc?””
How bout we bust his rotten monopoly for the sale of personal information to our enemies? And, he is using a public utility to do it.
Nope, he makes Hillary look like the alpha male.
Can you share your real interest in defending facefart?
How about this...
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law [in our case, the Constitution]!”― Robert Bolt, A Man for All SeasonsSir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws [again, in our case, the Constitution], not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then [unbridled federal tyranny]? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
As I said, "Today Zuckerberg, tomorrow you and I and they don’t have to give you a reason."
The Constitution creates and limits the federal government. The first ten amendments were intended to REMIND the feds not to infringe on individual pre-existing, God-given rights like free speech, and keeping and bearing arms. The feds, not Zuckerberg, are constitutionally prohibited from straying from their limited powers, enumerated and delegated by the Constitution.
The Constitution enumerates limited GOVERNMENT rights and power, NOT individual right and powers which are presumed pre-existent and God-given according to the Declaration of Independence which principles are presumed in the Constitution.
All of this is confirmed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Ninth Amendment [IX].
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Tenth Amendment [X].
However, the “sale of personal information to our enemies” would be treason which IS a legitimate issue for which the feds could go after Zuckerberg.
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.