Trusting Zuckerberg and Facebook Is Like Chickens Trusting KFC

In 2010, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said Privacy is Dead and for people to get over it. In 2010, Mark said if he were to create Facebook again then all user information would by default be public.

Mark Zuckerberg has recently wrote that Facebook will create a privacy-focused social network based upon Whatsapp.

Everything that Facebook has done is a business model generating tens of billions per year based upon selling user privacy to corporations for targeted advertising and access.

Facebook also has dozens to hundreds of engineers and staff working on a Brain Computer Interface to read peoples minds.

Facebook tracks users by accessing GPS data in your smartphone and by spying on your app usage and smartphone activity and internet activity.

It is obvious from everything that Zuckerberg and Facebook has done and said in the past and even everything they do and say today that they only give occasional lip service to privacy and user issues.

Zuckerberg could not get through one complete talk at Harvard to stay consistent about caring about user privacy. The second half of the talk indicated his excitement about using technology read user minds.

Trusting Facebook and Zuckerberg would be like chickens listening to Colonel Sanders talk about starting up KFC 2.0 which would protect chickens.

SOURCES- Facebook, Wired, NY Times

Written By Brian Wang

37 thoughts on “Trusting Zuckerberg and Facebook Is Like Chickens Trusting KFC”

  1. That’s backwards. Facebook wants to be classed like a common carrier with no responsibility over the content they transmit. That’s why they are not sued into the ground for piracy when users post pirated content.

    But here’s the thing; perfectly legal posts containing e.g. unconfortable opinions are routinely removed (Facebook functioning as an editor). Facebook is simultaneously claiming to not be responsible for content and acting as a publisher, who is responsible for the content published. Legally they are not on very firm ground.

  2. Your mistake is thinking that users even can give informed conscent to Facebook’s use of their data. The uses are not clearly spelled out and can change by simple change in ownership or policy and the data. The data will be stored forever with no effective controls how it will ultimately be used.

    E.g. a health insurance company might be very interested to know how much you exercise, how much you drink and how you eat. They would love to get that data. You maybe only thought data would be used for advertisements.

    The various three-letter-agencies would also love your data; that’s why the lifebook program existed; ended the same day facebook started. What level of access are they given? Who knows?

    It is not at all clear to people when they give apps access to their phone that they will listen to ultrasonic tracking beacons that stores sometimes use to identify users who pass near displays.

    Facebook is as transparent as were the Stasi with how they are going to use your data and the consequences are not forseeable.

  3. is that the best you can do? Given all the phenominally stupid things that come out of her mouth?

  4. As opposed to fat Americans she does kind of stand out. To see Drumph in a swim suite would be f n scary eh jello boy

  5. It’s also the definition of “dark matter”. 95% of the matter in the galaxy is hidden for tax purposes.

  6. It’s their site, they can deny you access for any reason they want.
    If you created the content and you hit the post button, you’re the editor/publisher. If you created the content and ‘Zuckerman’ reviews it and corrects your typos before he hits the post button, he’s the editor/publisher.

    Just because he tells you to take your crap and get off his lawn, that does not make him the editor/publisher of your personal piratebay.

  7. Hey … billy goats think dame goats look sexy. 
    What can I say?
    … it takes ALL kinds …
    ✓ ✓ ✓

  8. I like your 5 → 4.6875 edit, LOL. (the automatic email update to be recorded your original comment)

    Exactly tuned to raise my hackles, were I in that mood this morning. 

    I am not. 

    Perhaps you missed the fact I was lampooning her position by focussing on her outward appearance and boundless (unfounded) energy. Smile! We’re all on Candid Camera! 

    ✓ ✓ ✓

  9. She has that frail, runt physique of an urbanite that never ran a mile, or hit or kicked a ball. Additionally, unlike many latinas, her face is not ‘easy on the eyes’ – it is gaunt. Face is certainly unsuitable for the bright red lipstick she often wears. She is a 4.6875 out of 10, average or below; it is NOT relevant for a politician. You brought up the subject; nobody else comments on her looks, but you find her cute; she is not. She is just a frail, millennial, big-scarf girl appearance wise – dime a dozen in NYC or SF. Typically bartenders are better looking than this.

  10. To Brain’s first Q: no, of course not. Second Q: imprison Zuck and shut down the “service”.
    Question for Brian though – does NBF have any data sharing with FB directly or via 3rd party? E.g., FB pixel or other data tracking?

  11. I’m planning to use my FB record to prove I was opposed to all the wars, both foreign, and domestic the feds are fighting, once the allies triumph over the fascists in Washington. No sir, no war crimes trial, or reeducation camp for the kid!!!

  12. She does look a bit Goaty. Maybe it’s the long nose, and big square teeth. I wonder if she has a strong body odor?

  13. FB claims it is not responsible when someone posts copyrighted content on it’s site, because it does not exercise editorial authority, and thus is not a publisher. It also claims it can deny anyone the use of it’s site to post legal content due to it’s infinitely mutable “community standards”. Isn’t the latter practice exercising editorial authority, making it a publisher, and liable for copyright violation, and libel?

    It’s time Zuckerman decides to either be a publisher, or not, instead of trying for some sort of quantum legal superposition of the two states. There are far to many observers of FB for that probability wave function to remain uncollapsed.

  14. Did you get a message, or just no sharing, after clicking the share button? I bet there are hundreds of thousands of attempts at this per hour now. The big Zucker is probably running around in circles, trying to decide whether to escape in his Osprey, or his Polaris submarine. Zuck can easily afford an Osprey, but even he goes used for a nuclear submarine!

  15. On Facebook I use a nickname, I only add a small number of people I want to keep in touch with and overall I barely use it at all, I only go there maybe once a month to check for messages, that’s about it.

  16. I will definitely nominate the title of this article as worthy of “best title of the month”. I just love it. “Like chickens trusting KFC” (with their retirement fund! LOL)

    Just ✔

  17. Stop being irrational, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
    If you’re not paying cash for the website you’re frequenting then you’re paying with ads and all that entails.

    If you really think what FB is doing is evil you would not have included those 15 ads and tracking scripts in your blog. Ex: “,adsbygoogle,,ib.adnxs,ads.pubmatic,spotxchange,pixel.advertising,,”

    Either free but ad supported content is a legit business model or it’s not. If you think it’s not then you should be the first to stop before railing against FB.

  18. She really is a cutie.
    Kind of like my daughter.
    In fact, about the same age.
    And (ahem) ethnic mix. 

    And VERVE! And certainty.
    And all the rest. 
    The antidote to :snowflake: is definitely a Pikachu
    Quite post-modern.


  19. Likely, by her definition dark money may only be received, or spent by “white males, and everyone else that opposes me”. It’s sort of like all lives matter being a racist statement, and Blacks being immune from being racists, no matter how racist their behavior, and for how long.
    The latter is supposed to be because only whites have “power, or white privilege”(UNDER NO CONDITIONS WHITE POWER). As far as I can tell, the only privilege Whites have, is that they are allowed to be Republicans with a minimum of harassment, unlike Blacks, although no one is allowed to vote for Orange man. Especially in 2020 AD.

  20. I read on ZH that FB no longer allows links to ZH articles on FB. I tried twice, but could not place a link to that article on my FB page. As a control, I finally tried to comment on a friends page, no problem. I then tried to post a comment containing the acronym ZH, no luck.
    Finally, I tried to make a post about some innocuous comment, as if a link to an article that is mostly about economics, foreign affairs, and political coverage with a taste for hard money, and international peace isn’t innocuous. Maybe it’s because you can make any technically legal comment you care there, no matter what your political views.
    Does that threaten FB?

  21. I thought the definition of “dark money” was money that’s off the books… like nobody really knows who owns it or directs it or even knows were it came from…

  22. “dems” are only against “dark money” when its a republican running for office…otherwise they dont’ see it…

Comments are closed.