Zuckerberg's Senate Committee testimony

yea. well the latter. and the answer to that is superceded by the monetary value of that info.

I'd say both.

If stuff needs better regulations, you need to have both.

Haven't seen much of the hearings, but what I have seen.....if these guys have no clue about the subject they need to write new laws/legislations for, how the hell could there be proper regulation? Sure, there will be droves of technical people involved writing those. But lots of them are people from the industry themselves. And it's these politicians who will sign off on it. They probably don't understand what they're signing off on. At least have some people in there who can effectively translate the technical to the societal.

For drafting of legislation, it’s fairly common for the “deep state” (civil servants) to have the relevant expertise either in-house or consulted with. Politicians don’t draft legislation.

And I agree, for drafting legislation/regulation, you need both. But for the hearings? That’s not what you need.

I know. They do carry responsibility though. As I've said: they sign it off. I didn't say they actually write the laws themselves. Good to mention though. Needs to be clear.

And for the hearings: to me it seems pretty ineffective to have a bunch of guys being schooled on the most basic priciples. You might argue thats the societal perspective. And to a degree that might indeed be the case. But there's a huge part of society whos actually more well versed into these things. And to them it's fairly easy to distrust government even more than they probably already did.

Not all of it was bad though. But I was hoping for more. I'm a bit disappointed.

Especially when compared to Chris Wileys hearing in the UK. That had more depth to it. Even though the investigators also werent as savvy as one would hope. But there was more of an inquisitive nature there. imooo

Ok, there was something about politicians writing legislation. Kinda stupid to say it like that.

They do propose them though. So they have a responsibility. And it is implied they know and understand what they propose. And finally, what they put into law.

Just caught about 5 minutes of some French (?) guy ripping into Zuckerberg in the current European testimony. Never got to hear what Zuck responded with but just the guy asking questions was obviously more knowledgeable than any of the Senators from the American hearings bits that I saw or read about. Also made me chuckle asking Zuck if he was going to pay their profile's 'worth' to users. 

people always argue "Zuckerberg is just autistic" or something, I dunno though, are people too PC that nobody can be a classical psychopath anymore (distinction being made between psychopath and sociopath as well, I guess 'psychopath' would be likes to cheat people/likes to get ahead in life at others expense)? Like a detachment from peoples' feelings/ethical concerns has to be just mere detachment/social faux pas in 2018 and can't be kinda malicious. Is Zuckerberg even falling back on dat shit, like he's saving as his Trump card (lol) that he can 'plead the autism' like pleading the fifth

I also said Zuckerberg is one Peter Parker-looking motherfucker in real life but like if peter parker was quasi-retarded and forgot the Uncle Ben speech instantly

lest we forget