TED CRUZ Hammers Mark Zuckerberg on Censorship of Conservative Speech

TED CRUZ Hammers Mark Zuckerberg on Censorship of Conservative Speech (VIDEO)

April 10, 2018

Jim Hoft

Senator Ted Cruz blasted Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on the company’s censorship of conservative news.

After two hours of testimony FINALLY one Republican asked Zuckerberg about their crackdown on conservative content.

https://youtu.be/v2B4ho0I0nc

Tech Giants Google and Facebook are currently purging conservative content from Facebook and YouTube — They are hiding conservative stories on Google — They are shadow-banning conservative news on all social media.

In February Facebook launched a new algorithm to ensure that conservative news would not spread on the social media platform.

This was after Facebook announced it was losing 50,000,000 user hours a day in the previous quarter.

The algorithm change caused President Donald Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts to plummet a whopping 45%.

In contrast, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders(I-VT) do not appear to have suffered a comparable decline in Facebook engagement.
Top conservative Facebook pages with daily traffic in the millions have seen 75% to 95% drop in traffic.

Young Cons, Western Journalism, SarahPalin.com, Independent Journal Review, Right Wing News, and several others have seen dramatic loss in traffic.
In 2016 we were one of the few conservative sites that supported candidate Trump – along with Breitbart, The Drudge Report, Infowars, Zero Hedge and Conservative Treehouse. We are proud of our efforts to report the truth that led to Trump’s historic win.

In 2017 Harvard and Columbia Journalism Review found that The Gateway Pundit was the 4th most influential conservative news source in the 2016 election.

Because of this we were targeted and have seen our numbers related to Facebook and Twitter decline dramatically.

The Gateway Pundit does not rely on Facebook for our traffic numbers.
Still, we saw a significant drop in Facebook traffic in the last month.
And this past weekend Facebook shut down our traffic stream from the social media platform.

This is corrupt, if not criminal, behavior.

Meanwhile, liberal sites are doing fine.

Now this…

A new report by the far left Outline organization confirmed the conservative publishers were hit the hardest by the recent Facebook news feed changes.


The study also found the The Gateway Pundit was hit the hardest by these changes.

Via The Outline:

Facebook’s January 12 announcement that it would begin to de-prioritize news publishers and their posts in users’ News Feeds has had a surprisingly profound and partisan impact. According to The Outline’s analysis of Facebook engagement data obtained from research tool BuzzSumo, conservative and right-wing publishers (such as Breitbart, Fox News, and Gateway Pundit) were hit the hardest in the weeks following the announcement, with Facebook engagement totals for February dropping as much as 55 percent for some, while the engagement numbers of most predominantly liberal publishers remained unaffected.
Both liberal and conservative publishers of clickbait and highly polarizing content also experienced a significant drop in engagement following Facebook’s News Feed de-prioritization announcement.
The Outline drew these conclusions after analyzing the Facebook engagement data of 20 publishers from March 5, 2017 to February 28, 2018.

The Outline then posted results from several top US news publishers.

You can see The New York Times has not suffered by the recent changes.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-c...t-facebook.jpg


But conservative news publishers were hit hard.
Here is Breitbart.com’s Facebook page.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-c...-facebook-.jpg


And here is The Gateway Pundit’s Facebook numbers through February.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-c...p-facebook.jpg


In March Facebook shut down our content. You cannot even share a Gateway Pundit story without getting a warning now. And this is after we spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising on Facebook in the past.



** Please text or call your representative and have them address this issue before all conservative publishers are shut down.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018...-speech-video/

They also "unlike" your "likes" and reduce the numbers of "likes"...that they do not LIKE

I have liked things and there are maybe 40 likes at that time...then go I go back and then there are only 3 likes!

Ted Cruz Stands Up To Facebook For Chick-fil-A, Diamond And Silk



April 10, 2018

Matt Schuman


Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Tuesday grilled Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg on whether or not his social media platform was suppressing the viewpoints of important conservative figures like Diamond and Silk, the popular Trump surrogates, and fast-food chain Chick-fil-A.


“There are a great many Americans who I think are deeply concerned that Facebook and other tech companies are engaged in a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship,” Cruz told Zuckerberg during a joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees.

“There have been numerous instances with Facebook,” he continued, before listing a few, starting with a 2016 Gizmodo report that former Facebook employees claimed the website’s “trending” sidebar had suppressed conservative-leaning stories.


“In addition to that,” Cruz continued, “Facebook has initially shut down the Chick-fil-A appreciation day page, has blocked a post of a Fox News reporter, has blocked over two dozen Catholic pages and most recently blocked Trump supporters Diamond and Silk’s page, with 1.2 million Facebook followers, after determining their content and brand were, quote, ‘unsafe to the community.’ To a great many Americans that appears to be a pervasive pattern of political bias.”


Zuckerberg didn’t answer for the individual examples Cruz gave — TPM was unable to immediately verify them, save for Diamond and Silk’s well-reported claim, though they were not blocked — but said he was similarly concerned about ensuring that Facebook didn’t represent a political bias. Cruz interrupted him, asking if the website had blocked posts from a list of progressive organizations. Zuckerberg said he wasn’t aware.


Cruz also asked if Facebook asked potential content moderators about their political views, to which Zuckerberg answered that the company didn’t.


And, in response to a question from Cruz, Zuckerberg said that ousted Oculus cofounder Palmer Luckey had not left that position for political reasons. Before Luckey left Oculus, which had been acquired by Facebook, the Daily Beast revealed that he’d supported an anti-Hillary Clinton group.


“I can commit that it was not because of a political view,” Zuckerberg said.


Watch below: (Video at Link same as above)




https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...amond-and-silk

Cruz Grills Zuckerberg: Is Facebook Neutral 'Or Engaged in Political Speech

April 10, 2018

FOX News

---

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz grilled Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg over claims his social media platform was not indeed a neutral public forum.


Cruz, a Republican, asked several times whether Facebook is a neutral forum or whether it is simply engaging in its First Amendment right to political speech.


"There are a great many Americans who I think are deeply concerned that Facebook and other tech companies are [engaging in] a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship," Cruz said.


Cruz said there have been instances where conservative or right-leaning thoughts or pages have been suppressed.

He mentioned posts about the IRS scandal in which former employee Lois Lerner was accused of targeting conservative groups for additional review, posts about Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.), radio host Glenn Beck, and the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland.

He pointed out that North Carolina-based conservative activists Diamond & Silk had their page deemed "unsafe to the community."




Zuckerberg said he understands the view that, as a company in liberal Silicon Valley, Calif., Facebook may engage in such politicking. But he said that is not his intent as chief executive.

.@DiamondandSilk to @facebook: "What about our freedom of speech? This is censorship. You are censoring our voices." https://t.co/sxwCnRNI6m@IngrahamAngle pic.twitter.com/q3lXGkGgAd
— Fox News (@FoxNews) April 10, 2018

"[We try] to make sure we don't have any bias in the work that we do," Zuckerberg said.

Cruz appeared unconvinced and asked whether the same fate of censorship or suppression on Facebook has affected pages run by MoveOn.org, Planned Parenthood or Democratic political candidates.

Zuckerberg said he was unaware of any such actions.
He said there is a team of more than 10,000 employees tasked with "content review."

Zuckerberg said he is "very committed that Facebook is a platform for all ideas."

Watch more above. (Video at Link same as first one)


http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/04/1...ral-censorship

Related:

Facebook Has Dozens of Ex-Obama and Ex-Hillary Staffers in Senior Positions

https://www.alipac.us/f19/facebook-h...itions-357627/

Facebook Handed Out Contributions to 85% of House Committee Ahead of Zuck Questioning

By Becky Loggia
April 8, 2018 at 3:37pm


From nearly 87 million users having their privacy breached, to foreign ad campaigns using the platform to allegedly “divide America,” Facebook has been making plenty of negative headlines of late.

As Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg gears up to testify to Congress this week, the well-known figure will be facing off with lawmakers, some of whom have been itching to confront him and others who have been receiving financial gain from his company.

Members of the House and Senate committees will be questioning the CEO about privacy protection and the violations that have rocked the company as of late.

According to a report last week by USA Today, some of these lawmakers are also the “biggest recipients of campaign contributions from Facebook employees directly and the political action committee funded by employees.”

The congressional panel that received the most contributions from the company is the House Energy and Commerce Committee, whose lawmakers are set to question Zuckerberg on Wednesday.

Of the 55 members on this committee, all but nine of them have received contributions by Facebook for the past decade, with the average Democrat receiving nearly $6,750 and the average Republican receiving $6,800.

And Republicans got nearly twice as much as their Democratic counterparts when it came to the House committee and monetary contributions.
An example can be seen in committee chairman Greg Walden, R-Oregon, who received $27,000, while Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., received only $7,000.

Both Walden and Pallone announced their committee would question Zuckerberg to shed light on what they call “critical consumer data privacy issues and help all Americans better understand what happens to their personal information online.”

The pair also said they appreciate Zuckerberg’s “willingness to testify.”

In regards to Facebook’s campaign gift, however, Republicans got a mere 33 percent and Democrats got 65 percent, adding to about $7 million worth of gifts.

A spokesman for Facebook responded to contribution inquiries by alluding to a statement made in April of 2017 to employees within the company and its “political engagement.”

In the statement, it was said the company wanted to maximize its ability to “develop relationships with elected officials … who share our vision of an open Internet.”

It also mentioned Facebook’s PAC and the fact that candidates will get support based on whether or not they are in line with the company’s policy positions and “whether the candidate holds a key committee or leadership position.”

Though the company is expected to receive a torrent of criticism for its mishandling of privacy issues, some lawmakers believe the questioning should be a sign to other tech companies around the world.

“I think we’re at a moment of reckoning,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. “It’s really high noon for Facebook and the tech industry.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/faceb...f_source=Email

Facebook isn't stupid.

:)

video clips at story link

Day 2 of Mark Zuckerberg Testimony: A Tougher Round of Questioning

By CECILIA KANG, TIFFANY HSU, KEVIN ROOSE, NATASHA SINGER and MATTHEW ROSENBERGUPDATED 5:26 PM

Mark Zuckerberg, the billionaire founder and chief executive of Facebook, faced a much tougher crowd on the House side of Capitol Hill in his second day of congressional testimony.
Over the two days, there were nearly 10 hours of hearings, during which almost 100 lawmakers grilled Mr. Zuckerberg.

While Tuesday’s Senate hearing contained tough questions, the lawmakers were generally deferential to the executive. That was less the case in the House, where lawmakers repeatedly interrupted Mr. Zuckerberg and chided him for not answering questions to their satisfaction.

Lawmakers on both side of the aisle on Wednesday pushed Mr. Zuckerberg on his company’s handling of user data. They were particularly focused on the platform’s privacy settings, which put the onus on users to protect their privacy. He was also asked about:
• Whether the social network should be regulated.
• What Russians did on Facebook during the 2016 election.
• Whether the social network had a liberal bias.
• What Facebook ultimately is as it has grown into a global behemoth.

Regulating the use of private data

Representative Greg Walden, Republican of Oregon and chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, kicked off the hearing by declaring that “while Facebook has certainly grown, I worry it has not matured.”
Mr. Walden floated the prospect of regulation, saying that “I think it is time to ask whether Facebook may have moved too fast and broken too many things.”

Later in the hearing, Mr. Zuckerberg said regulation was “inevitable.” But he repeated that the right kind of regulation mattered and he pointed out that some regulation could only solidify the power of a large company like Facebook, which could hurt start-ups.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e-details.html
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018...-master495.png

On Tuesday, several senators sounded a similar tune, saying Facebook couldn’t be trusted with the vast amounts of data being collected, much of which was being done without users’ full understanding. Three senators introduced privacy legislation that would require users’ permission to collect and share their data.

On Wednesday, Mr. Zuckerberg was asked to agree to privacy legislation that requires permission for data collection. Mr. Zuckerberg demurred and did not express support for any specific legislative proposal.

Representative Frank Pallone Jr., a New Jersey Democrat, pressed Mr. Zuckerberg on whether Facebook would agree or refuse to change Facebook’s default settings to minimize collection and use of users’ data.

“This is a complex issue that deserves more than a one word answer,” Mr. Zuckerberg answered.
“That’s disappointing to me,” Mr. Pallone responded.

The concern was echoed by Representative Bobby L. Rush, a Democrat of Illinois, who pointed a finger at Mr. Zuckerberg and asked: “Why is the onus on the user to opt in to privacy and security settings?”

But Mr. Zuckerberg also did not dismiss a proposal from Representative Raul Ruiz, a Democrat from California, to create a digital consumer protection agency that would subject Facebook and its peers to some degree of government involvement.

Mr. Zuckerberg called the idea one “that deserves a lot of consideration” but said that the “details on this really matter.”

Facebook’s ‘User Agreement Sucks,’ Senator Says. We Explore.

A Facebook leak allowed Cambridge Analytica to obtain the data of 87 million users, and has led to serious pushback for Mark Zuckerberg, including from Senator John Kennedy, who told the chief executive his company’s user agreement “sucks.”
By SHEERA FRENKEL and GRANT GOLD on Publish Date April 11, 2018. Photo by Tom Brenner/The New York Times. Watch in Times Video »

Could Europe’s privacy laws serve as a model?

Last week, Mr. Zuckerberg made a promise. He said that Facebook planned to give users worldwide the same privacy controls required by a tough new data protection law which will go into effect in the European Union next month.
This morning, Representatives Gene Green, a Texas Democrat, and Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat, pressed him repeatedly on the issue. And Mr. Zuckerberg repeated his commitment to give all users those controls.

But European regulators and privacy advocates said over the last week that a number of Facebook’s current practices seemed violate the new law, called the General Data Protection Regulation.
For one thing, the European law requires privacy by design and default. European experts said that, in their view, that would require Facebook turn off a number of advertising and privacy settings which are currently set to sharing and instead ask user permission to turn them on.

Mr. Zuckerberg answered the legislators’ questions by saying that the company plans to put a tool “at the top of everyone’s app” where users will be able to make privacy and sharing choices. But the company may not offer affirmative consent — asking users to explicitly opt-in — in every country, depending on legal issues, he said.
Facebook currently allows users to download a copy of their personal data like their messages, likes and posts.
But Mr. Green wanted to know if Facebook would comply with the European law — and extend those protections to users worldwide — by providing individuals with the complete records and profiles the Facebook has compiled on them. That would include any data the company collected about its users by tracking them on other websites, and any data the company bought or acquired from third parties about users, and any categorizations or algorithmic scores Facebook created about users, regulators said.

Mr. Zuckerberg said he believed all of the data is available.
That isn’t true for the moment — at least for a couple of reporters who recently downloaded their Facebook data. But Facebook has about six weeks to figure out how to give users a copy of their algorithmic scores, web tracking data and other records the social network has compiled before the law goes into effect in Europe.

The uses of facial recognition technology

Facial recognition — a technology that scans your face and converts into a mathematical code that can be used to identify you in any other facial photo or video still — is a hot-button topic on both sides of the Atlantic. That is because it involves measuring and collecting data about people’s unique physical attributes.

Facebook uses the technology in a name-tagging feature that can automatically suggest the names of people in users’ photographs. But regulators in Europe have cracked down on Facebook for rolling it out without users’ explicit opt-in consent. And privacy groups in the United States filed a complaint last week to the Federal Trade Commission saying Facebook’s recent expanded use of the technology violated a settlement the company made with the agency in 2011.

When legislators asked him about the tough new European privacy rules today, Mr. Zuckerberg said he was generally concerned that some constraints could restrict companies based in the United States from innovating with technologies like facial recognition — allowing China to take the lead in developing the technology.
Even so, Mr. Zuckerberg said, technologies like face recognition should require permission from users.
For sensitive technologies, he said, “I do think you want a special consent.”

Is Facebook a monopoly?

Mr. Zuckerberg pushed back against suggestions that Facebook is essentially a monopoly, “without any true competitor,” as put by Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan.
Reiterating a point made Tuesday before the Senate, Mr. Zuckerberg said that there is a “lot of competition” that Facebook managers “definitely feel in running the company.” He mentioned, but did not name, eight apps that users rely on to communicate.

He left out that, according to comScore, Facebook owns three of the top ten mobile apps used in the United States: Facebook, Facebook Messenger and Instagram.
Of the remaining seven, Google owns five (YouTube, Google Search, Google Maps, Google Play and Gmail). Only Snapchat and Pandora are independent.

Cambridge Analytica and Russia’s election interference

Lawmakers pressed Mr. Zuckerberg on why Facebook didn’t inform users about the harvesting of user data by Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm with ties to the Trump campaign, in 2015, when it was informed of the data abuse.
Mr. Pallone, the New Jersey Democrat, chided Mr. Zuckerberg for his company’s naïveté in not realizing how Facebook data could be utilized.

“For all the good it brings, Facebook can be a weapon for those, like Russia and Cambridge Analytica, that seek to harm us and hack our democracy,” he said.
Several lawmakers have pointed out to Mr. Zuckerberg, repeatedly, that the Obama campaign used a Facebook app to also scrape data from users and their friends in 2012.

But those lawmakers have failed to mention one very important distinction between the Obama campaign’s app and Cambridge Analytica’s app: The Obama app was actually on Facebook itself, and it was very clear about who and what the data would be used for.

The app used to scrape data for Cambridge Analytica was accessed through a personality questionnaire hosted on a site outside of Facebook, and it appeared to users to be for academic research, not for a political data company owned by a wealthy Republican donor and dedicated to reshaping the American electorate.

Asked whether Facebook will sue the researcher who created the app, Aleksandr Kogan, or Cambridge Analytica, Mr. Zuckerberg said “it’s something we’re looking into.”
Partisan bias and Facebook’s responsibility as a publisher

Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas, zeroed in on a line of questioning that his Texas counterpart in the Senate, Ted Cruz, also asked, pressing Mr. Zuckerberg on why Facebook has been allegedly censoring content from conservative organizations and Trump supporters such as Diamond and Silk.

Mr. Barton also asked Mr. Zuckerberg if he would agree that Facebook would work to ensure it is “a neutral public platform,” a question also asked by Mr. Cruz.
“I do agree that we should give people a voice,” Mr. Zuckerberg said.

Republican lawmakers returned several times to the issue of bias on Facebook.
Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana questioned whether Facebook’s newsfeed algorithms tamp down conservative news in favor of more left-leaning outlets, to which Mr. Zuckerberg responded that “there is absolutely no directive” to have “any kind of bias in anything we do.”

The proliferation of so-called fake news has put Mr. Zuckerberg in an awkward spot, as the company promises to do a better job of weeding out propaganda and falsehoods but insists it cannot police free speech.
Out in the hall during a break in the hearing, Representative Billy Long, a Republican from Missouri, also expressed frustration about Facebook’s treatment of Diamond and Silk, two pro-Trump video personalities who have complained about being censored by the platform.

“It seems like they take down a lot more conservative content than they do liberal,” he said.
Mr. Long said that he needed more answers about the Diamond and Silk situation, and that he hoped Mr. Zuckerberg could ensure that the company’s thousands of moderators weren’t biased against conservatives.
“He better hope he does it, not us,” Mr. Long added. “Or Congress is going to get involved, and regulate a private industry.”

What kind of company is Facebook?

Mr. Walden of Oregon foreshadowed a line of questioning for Mr. Zuckerberg on how Facebook works and if the social media site has become a publisher or utility service that deserves regulation.
“What exactly is Facebook?” Mr. Walden asked, listing industries like advertising, publishing and even telecom, or “common carrier in the information age.”
The definitions matter. If Facebook is viewed as a telecommunications service that is more like a utility, it may be regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. If lawmakers define Facebook as a publisher, it could also fall under regulations at that agency.

“I consider us to be a technology company,” Mr. Zuckerberg answered. “The primary thing we do is have engineers that write code and build services for other people.”
Facebook, he said, is not a software company, despite creating software. It is not an aerospace company, even though it builds planes. It is not a financial institution, although it offers payment tools for users.
“Do we have a responsibility for the content people share on Facebook? I think the answer to that question is yes,” Mr. Zuckerberg said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/u...T.nav=top-news

zuckerberg day 2 clips

https://youtu.be/IsiuQ1Go60Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsiuQ1Go60Q

excerpt from long Breitbart story...
Zuckerberg admits that the company made an “enforcement error” when it flagged Diamond and Silk’s page for “unsafe” content. He claims they have gotten in touch with Diamond and Silk, but the dynamic duo has claimed they have not heard from the company.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DabGb5NW...g&name=900x900

Quote:

---

Let us be clear; @facebook has NOT communicated directly with @DiamondandSilk. We haven't spoken to Mark Zuckerberg or any representative from Facebook.

---

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...fies-congress/

video clip at link - commentary on zuckerberg lying day 2 & goes over congress' head -
"you have control over all your content & can remove it at any time"
He doesn't mention that facebook keeps all your content forever and actually has rights to it that you gave them when you signed up. Deleted or not!

Mark Zuckerberg may have left Washington D.C. unscathed after two days of congressional grilling, as lawmakers appeared to struggle with a basic understanding of how Facebook works. Ari Melber fact checks some of Zuckerberg’s responses to Congress and lays out which questions still require answers.Apr.11.2018
http://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-a...-1208767043756

Sen. John Kennedy GRILLS Zuckerberg about Facebook Privacy

https://youtu.be/11l0818XILM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11l0818XILM

Facebook admits it was in talks with hospitals to share patients’ data

Tess Cagle—
Apr 6 at 1:30PM


https://www.dailydot.com/wp-content/...-2048x1024.jpg



The project has reportedly been brought to a halt.



In another recent development about Facebook and its willingness to give away its users’ information, the social media platform was reportedly looking to share anonymized users’ data with major U.S. hospitals.


As first reported by CNBC on Thursday, Facebook’s research arm, Building 8, was in the beginning phases of a project where they would have “hashed” their own data with medical records provided by hospitals around the country. It hoped the combined data could allow doctors to get more relevant and specialized insight into their patients’ lives.


The proposal never went past the planning phases, according to a Facebook spokesperson, and has been put on pause after the Cambridge Analytica data leak scandal raised public concerns over how Facebook and others collect and use detailed information about Facebook users.
Facebook put out the following statement about the project:

“The medical industry has long understood that there are general health benefits to having a close-knit circle of family and friends. But deeper research into this link is needed to help medical professionals develop specific treatment and intervention plans that take social connection into account.

With this in mind, last year Facebook began discussions with leading medical institutions, including the American College of Cardiology and the Stanford University School of Medicine, to explore whether scientific research using anonymized Facebook data could help the medical community advance our understanding in this area. This work has not progressed past the planning phase, and we have not received, shared, or analyzed anyone’s data.

Last month we decided that we should pause these discussions so we can focus on other important work, including doing a better job of protecting people’s data and being clearer with them about how that data is used in our products and services.”

CNBC said Facebook’s pitch was to combine what a health system knows about its patients (like whether a person has heart disease, their age, what medications they take ) with what Facebook knows (like if they’re married or have kids, what language they speak, how often they communicate online) to create improved patient care. For example, if an elderly patient doesn’t live close to family, a hospital could recommend they be assigned a nurse to make house calls.


As the news broke, users said on Twitter that this latest development is yet another attempt by Facebook to abuse its users’ data.


Health policy experts agree with this sentiment and said Facebook needs to think through the privacy implications of the project.


“Consumers wouldn’t have assumed their data would be used in this way,” said Aneesh Chopra, president of a health software company specializing in patient data called CareJourney and the former White House chief technology officer. “If Facebook moves ahead (with its plans), I would be wary of efforts that repurpose user data without explicit consent.”


Facebook executives have already emphasized that the platform remains free because of the data it shares with advertisers. But in the wake of the news that 2.2 billion Facebook users have probably had their public data scraped by “malicious actors,” it’s clear that the platform needs to become more transparent about how it uses data.

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/faceboo...dical-records/