Big Tech Is in Big Trouble

Which brings us to the common share-price-depressant: the fear of regulation, a sense that the party is over for Facebook, Google, and Amazon, just as it was for John D. Rockefeller’s oil monopoly in 1911. (Netflix is not a target, since it lacks market power; its stock, down 37 percent from its June high, remains 29 percent above its price at the start of the year; and Apple is of less concern to politicians.) Gone are the days when then-chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt, is said, whether in jest or seriously is uncertain, to have never needed Washington hotel reservations because the Obama White House Lincoln bedroom was his without-the-asking. And when Mark Zuckerberg, boss of Facebook, was idolized as the wunderkind who was knitting the world together, profit being only a secondary or tertiary goal of the enterprise.

Google, which has admitted to exposing the private data of hundreds of thousands of customers, declined to have its leaders appear at a congressional hearing, and was rewarded with television images of their empty chair. Google staff refuse to work on important projects for the Pentagon, while developing a search engine for China unable to find anything displeasing to that authoritarian regime. Apple is opening a series of research centers in China and the Washington Post reports that Google graduates are helping the regime develop facial recognitions software (project “Sharp Eyes”) to monitor the nation’s 1.4 billion people, according. Not positions likely to win political support.

But none have done as much to turn the political class against the Silicon Valley, and to lay the basis for regulation of their businesses, as Facebook, with what the New York Times calls its policy of “Delay, Deny, Deflect.” The 40 percent plunge in the price of its shares since the end of July is due largely, according to Zuckerberg, to the bull**** published by the media. Trump, as always, eschewing such vulgarity, uses the term “fake news.”

Senators were more than a little annoyed when it turned out that Zuckerberg had been less than fully forthcoming about the full extent of Russian meddling in American elections. Senators were outraged when they learned from a New York Times report that Facebook had hired an “opposition-research group” to dig up dirt on the firm’s opponents, among them George Soros, principal funder of leftish Democrats. That same report noted that when well-regarded Democratic senator Mark Warner was questioning Zuckerberg in a less-than friendly manner, minority leader Chuck Schumer told him to back off. Schumer’s daughter is marketing manager in Facebook’s New York office.

Investors now expect some of the regulations adopted by the European Union to become law in America. Unannounced passing on of private information of Facebook users will end, reducing the social network’s ability to provide its advertisers with specific targets for their sales pitches. Google’s alleged practice of providing its own mapping and other services with preferred positions on its search results will end. And the social media platforms might be held liable for defamatory content, just like print media.

Perhaps most important, antitrust regulators are beginning to ask whether Facebook and Google have been able to nip competition in its incipiency by buying up start-ups that might bloom into competitors. And whether Amazon has been able to accomplish the same objective by announcing plans to enter any market that some newcomer eyes, cutting off the prospective competitor’s source of capital.

Makan Delrahim, the Department of Justice’s chief trustbuster, is discussing with state attorneys general whether Facebook, Google, and other Valley companies might be hurting competition. Rohit Chopra, head of the Federal Trade Commission, has hired Amazon critic Lina Khan, presumably to develop a case against the internet retailer. And David Cicilline, who will chair the House subcommittee responsible for antitrust policy, says “Facebook cannot be trusted to regulate itself.” Apple’s Tim Cook, unreluctantly and with malice aforethought, comments, to his competitors’ consternation, “I’m a great believer in the free market. But we have to admit when the free market is not working.” To which Harvard University’s media center adds that Facebook’s and Google’s digital advertising platforms undermine user privacy and provide an incentive for bad actors to organize disinformation campaigns. With a firing squad such as that forming, little wonder that investors wonder whether the intended victims can continue to grow earnings at past rates.

“Oh, but it’s sad when a love affair dies”, sing Che Guevara and Evita Peron of lovers no longer of use to Evita in Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice’s musical. Silicon Valley has antagonized lovers that until now had been powerful political supporters.

Mark Zuckerberg sided with the so-called Social Justice Warriors because, well, they scream the loudest. The easiest way to shut them up is to placate them.

Bad move.

It works in the short run but not the long run because SJW are, you know, fickle. They don't love you. They love that they control you and the love last only until the next SJW issue comes along.

More demands. Capitulation to the mob.

Zuckerberg wasn't the hero of the left. He was their b*tch.

Then came revelations Facebook accepted Russian ads that cost Democrats the election and gave access to Cambridge Analytica which harvested data for 'conservatives'.

Naturally, the SJWs of the Democratic party blame Zuckerberg for Hillary losing in 2016 and they want revenge, or at least, regulations.

Zuckerberg might have had allies in his fight but he picked sides long ago and now has no one on the conservative side to defend him.

Conservatives who were shut out by Facebook have no reason to stand by Zuckerberg. Why defend Facebook when Facebook wouldn't defend you?

I'm not sure what's coming next for Facebook but they did this to themselves by taking sides and now Zuckerberg has no one on his side.

Stole his business idea

Stole all the shares from his BEST friend

Secretly sold users’ data

Stated in a confidential email to a friend that people who trust him are "dumb-f*cks".

Married in the community proprety state of California, the very day AFTER he took Facebook public.

Requested nude photos of users to “protect them against the risk of revenge porn”.

Secretly tried to get hospitals to release vast stores of patient data “so I can help cure diseases”.

Initially pursued total rights ownership of images uploaded to FB; if you'd been photoed as a happy youth with, say, a can of Coors then later got really famous, Zuck could be paid by Coors for zero work and YOUR old photo in a new ad while you, the centerpiece of the ad, would get NOTHING. Struck down after lengthy legal battles.

De-platformed numerous Conservatives because he didn't agree with their views, couldn't define hate-speech when asked by Congress.

Secretly requested banks give him his users' financial data, including transactions, so “my users can check their balances on my site."

Digitally permitted his housing advertisers to filter out customers whose search histories were strongly associated with terms like "handicapped" , "mobility scooter" and "guidedog".

Admonished that people "build bridges instead of walls", all while building walls around his Palo Alto homes and around the huge Kauai Estate he bought and then threw the Hawaiians off of, an effort requiring 300 seperate lawsuits against local Hawaiian land claimants.

Established a "trustworthiness index" for ALL his facebook users while disclosing it to none of them.

Altered FB algorithms to flag content from conservative publications as spam.

Revered Augustus Caesar, leader of Rome who assured 200 years of peace via harsh rule, possibly arranging the execution of his own grandson. On a wedding anniversary trip to Rome, Zuck gushed so effusively over sculptures and monuments dedicated to Augustus that his wife joked that three people, not two, were on their trip.

For years, Zuck traditionally closed high-level Facebook executive meetings by shouting, "DOMINATION..!", perhaps half-jokingly.

Proposed installation in the homes of FB users special Facebook cameras that would monitor users and follow them around as they went about their private lives inside their homes. But the cameras, Zuckerberg assured, would come with privacy settings which Facebook would, like, totally respect, or something.

Asked for user telephone numbers for 2 factor authentication but within weeks used that data for marketing purposes. If users chose to share their entire contact list, Facebook also shared that data with advertisers, even phone numbers of people who NEVER had a facebook account. After the Cambridge Analytica scandal, FB pleged to reinvigorate user privacy but neither of these practices has stopped.

In the runup to the 2018 midterm elections, FB removed over 800 conservative political pages and accounts in a clamp down on what the social media company arbitrarily termed, “inauthentic behavior”. The ambitious political move affected 66 million FB users, most of them Conservative.

Permitted the search term "white genocide" to be used as a targeting criterion to aim advertising for products at 170,000 users who interacted with that subject.

When at their SF HQ in 2016 FB employees replaced a mural slogal, "Black Lives Matter" with the words, "All Lives Matter", Zuck returned the slogan to its original and reprimanded the employees as, "malicious and disrespectful".

In South Sudan in late Nov. 2018, Facebook permitted the auctioning of a CHILD BRIDE, age 16. The girl was sold for 500 cows, 3 cars and $10,000 and went into hiding. Five men, including some "high-ranking government officials," bid on the girl, according to Children's rights organization Plan International. At the same time it was revealed that Mexican child molesters had been using Facebook's Messenger app to collude regarding available kids and ongoing grooming prospects.

Parliament seizes cache of Facebook internal papers
UK Guardian ^ / FR Posted on 11/24/2018 ameribbean expat

Parliament has used its legal powers to seize internal Facebook documents in an extraordinary attempt to hold the US social media giant to account after chief executive Mark Zuckerberg repeatedly refused to answer MPs’ questions.

The cache of documents is alleged to contain significant revelations about Facebook decisions on data and privacy controls that led to the Cambridge Analytica scandal. It is claimed they include confidential emails between senior executives, and correspondence with Zuckerberg.

Damian Collins, the chair of the culture, media and sport select committee, invoked a rare parliamentary mechanism to compel the founder of a US software company, Six4Three, to hand over the documents during a business trip to London. In another exceptional move, parliament sent a serjeant at arms to his hotel with a final warning and a two-hour deadline to comply with its order. When the software firm founder failed to do so, it’s understood he was escorted to parliament. He was told he risked fines and even imprisonment if he didn’t hand over the documents. (Excerpt) Read more at amp.theguardian.com ...

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.