Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mark zuckerberg politics

AOC Wonders If Mark Zuckerberg Sees Facebook For The Raging Dumpster Fire It Really Is

"I’m just trying to understand the bounds here, what’s fair game."

"I’m just trying to understand the bounds here, what’s fair game."
This content has been archived. Log in or Subscribe for full access to thousands of archived articles.

14 comments on “AOC Wonders If Mark Zuckerberg Sees Facebook For The Raging Dumpster Fire It Really Is

  1. Out of curiosity… would it be even remotely possible to fact check all the garbage being posted on facebook? Is that why Mark is refusing to answer?

  2. Hate to say it but agree with Zuck on this. Censorship is a slippery slope.

    • You agree that Facebook should let politicians pay the company to post political ads that Facebook knows contain outright, demonstrable, verifiable lies?

      If I move to your town, would you be ok with me taking out an ad in your local newspaper that accuses you of being a convicted felon even if that claim has no basis whatsoever in reality? and what would you say to the paper if you proved to them ahead of time that I was lying and they took my money and ran the ad anyway? and what if you asked the paper to stop publishing the ad each and every day and they told you to piss off because they don’t “censor” paid ads.

      you’d probably sue me, and the paper, wouldn’t you?

      exactly.

  3. vicissitude

    non sequitur here, but I find it crazy that a billionaire punk goes out in public with a bowl cut or whatever that hair style he wears is. While currently not a fashion critic or hair expert, I maintain that Zuckboy looks like a moron and acts like a moron and totally agree that FB is a dumpster fire!

  4. I’m starting to think that Zuckerberg just ain’t that bright.

    He’s an accident.

    • I actually agree. He does not come across the same way Dorsey does, let alone Elon or Bezos. In fact, Zuck comes across as almost challenged at times. And I mean, he’s so rich you don’t even really need any caveats with the criticism. Like, most of the time I would say “Not to take anything away from him…” or “having said that, he’s clearly done well…”, but that’s kinda superfluous here. He’s worth $100 billion. But I wouldn’t trust him with even simple tasks that don’t involve a computer. I really, really wouldn’t.

  5. I don’t get it.
    Why is it so hard for him to renounce the Daily Caller?
    I mean, he’s jewish, for Christ’s sake (pun not intended), his wife is Asian-American.
    Rejecting some half-baked, right-wing, fake news website with a proven track record of antisemitic, white-supremacist contributors should be a no-brainer for him.
    As stated in the article, he’s not dependend on their money.
    Plus, Facebook has more than 2 Billion users worldwide, the Daily Caller is read by a handful of far-right wingnuts mainly in the US.

  6. Jaq Faizal

    I’m in no way a republican and I know you are a big fan of the “New democrats” but it appears to me AOC is pretty much just asking questions for media effect without expecting an answer. Questions along the lines of “what did you eat for breakfast on Oct 22, 2001?” and acting surprised that he doesn’t remember. More like a witch hunt than anything else.

    False advertisements are not new (say on billboards). They come with consequences (i.e. the advertiser getting sued and pays damages). Not a lawyer, but I don’t think billboard owners have ever been held responsible/liable for the content of the ads..Don’t recall the courts holding billboard owners liable for false advertisement in the tobacco company cases. Could be wrong and would like to know (with references) if I am. Facebook is just an online billboard. I believe there are laws protecting web platforms from liability related to content. If not, they would have all been shut down long ago and we wouldn’t have to suffer through taxpayer-funded AOC infomercials like these.

    What’s needed is for the “smart” folk in congress to modify the existing laws as they deem fit to avoid a repeat of the “Russian influence” fiasco. See if that flies..

    • vicissitude

      Your getting into an area where public domain and free speech get warped. Facebook users agree to use the service and thus its terms of service (agreements) and basically FB owns all the content from everyone, including the fine folks that are pushing political agendas and feeding-in false information. FB acts as almost a utility, distributing communication, thus it is regulated:

      The next time users visit Facebook, things might not look different, but big changes are brewing behind the scenes. The FTC’s record-breaking $5 billion settlement requires Facebook to conduct a massive overhaul of its consumer privacy practices. The settlement also makes major changes to Facebook’s operations and CEO Mark Zuckerberg no longer has sole control over privacy.

      https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2019/07/what-ftc-facebook-settlement-means-consumers

      Therefore, how does one compare FB rights to that of a billboard owner that puts of nazi porno? I assume that a community can enforce rules to establish local control, not unlike a town telling strip clubs or pot shops to not do business next to a school zone — and there maybe a grey line as to how to deal with a small town newspaper printing up nazi porn and suggesting newspapers have rights and need money to continue operating.

      Your apparent dislike for AOC does sort of paint you into the pro nazi porno supporter and most likely you belong to a very small (minded) minority that clearly can’t see the big picture!

      • Jaq Faizal

        Ha ha ha! Here’s an example of dislike “non sequitur here, but I find it crazy that a billionaire punk goes out in public with a bowl cut or whatever that hair style he wears is. While currently not a fashion critic or hair expert, I maintain that Zuckboy looks like a moron and acts like a moron and totally agree that FB is a dumpster fire!” – posted by YOU. You are essentially ridiculing someone’s appearance and associating that with his intellectual ability. And you are pointing fingers at me! I guess that’s how the communists roll..

        FB is not a regulated utility, yet. Not by decree or ruled as such by a court. A lot of companies settle rather than fight as a matter of convenience. And I clearly said that congress should act on it and make it so rather than waste my time and money on sideshows.

        And BTW, I’m way browner than AOC so not everyone that diasgrees with/dislikes her is a Nazi. Last time I checked, The First amendment is still intact..

        • Robert Bradley

          Says “I’m in no way Republican,” and then calls liberals “communists.” Yeah, sure, you’re no Republican. Riiiiight.

    • “Whataboutism” is propaganda 101.

      and here’s how people like myself short-circuit it: I don’t give a shit about tobacco ads on billboards. that’s irrelevant. there’s no point in bringing it up, because regardless of whether tobacco companies lied about cancer risk on billboards, Mark Zuckerberg is knowingly facilitating the spread of misinformation and he’s accepting money from the people who are spreading it.

      sure, billboard owners do the same thing. also, people illegally poach seals. also, people sometimes rob houses. also, i drove over the speed limit today.

      but none of those misdeeds in any way, shape or form ameliorates the fact that Mark Zuckerberg has a political ad policy that allows people like Donald Trump to run ads which contain outright, blatant lies. That people selling billboard space to tobacco companies probably surmised that inhaling toxic smoke into one’s lungs was a bad idea but ran the ads anyway has no connection to Facebook, no matter how many times you try to say it does. Just like it would have no connection to Facebook if it turns out that a guy selling snow boots out of a shack in the arctic surmised ahead of time that the last person he sold boots to was probably going to go club baby seals over the head.

      the simple fact of the matter is that AOC is asking Mark Zuckerberg a series of straightforward questions, one of which is, basically, “You know you’re doing something that is objectively shitty, right?”

      he clearly knows the answer is “yes” — “yes, I do know that, but I’m gonna do it anyway”.

      of course, I really didn’t have to take the time out of my evening to type this, because you know she’s right, I know she’s right, and everyone with working eyes and ears who clicked on that video knows she’s right.

Speak On It

Skip to toolbar