The Aftermath: Zuckerberg Abandoned By Peers, Mocked By Street Artists

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has found himself with few friends in Silicon Valley in the wake of the massive data harvesting scandal.

Tim Cook and Elon Musk are perhaps the highest profile tech leaders to criticize Facebook for playing fast and loose with user data - along with Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff and Whatspp founder Brian Acton, whose company Facebook bought for $22 billion.

Other tech leaders have remained quiet as the scandal has unfolded - which as Bloomberg notes, is unusual for Silicon Valley execs who traditionally circle the wagon when a peer is having a crisis. 

Facebook has sought to repair its public image and trust with more than 2 billion users after reports surfaced that Cambridge Analytica obtained data on as many 50 million of those U.S. accounts. As Zuckerberg, 33, faces calls to testify before Congress and lawmakers raise the idea of new regulations on tech, his peers have either stayed quiet or publicly criticized his company. In times of crisis, tech companies have sometimes huddled together to defend the industry, such as when Apple fought the FBI to protect an encrypted iPhone and during President Donald Trump’s proposed immigration ban last year against mostly Muslim countries.

When James Comey's FBI came banging on Apple's door asking them to decrypt an iPhone linked to the 2015 San Bernardino attack in which married couple Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik shot up a San Bernardino County Christmas party, killing 14 and injuring 22 - Facebook, Google, Microsoft and other big tech firms rallied around Tim Cook after the Apple CEO refused to comply.

The FBI was eventually able to unlock Farook's phone after a "mysterious third party" showed them how to bypass Apple security protocols. 

“Protecting privacy is good for business now,” said Gennie Gebhart, a researcher at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital privacy rights group. “Users are looking for other big tech personalities like Tim Cook, like Elon Musk, to be reassured that they’re not doing what Facebook did.”

Cook was asked about Facebook’s privacy crisis last month and called for stronger regulation of user data. Then, in an interview with Recode and MSNBC, Cook said he “wouldn’t be in this situation” if he were in Zuckerberg’s shoes. While Facebook makes money selling targeted advertisements based on user data, Apple’s profit comes from hardware products like the iPhone, iPad, and Mac.

Zuckerberg slapped back at Cook, telling Vox "I find that argument — that if you’re not paying, that somehow we can’t care about you — to be extremely glib and not at all aligned with the truth."

"There are a lot of people who can’t afford to pay" for a service, while having an "advertising-supported model is the only rational model that can support building this service to reach people," Zuckerberg said. "If you want to build a service which is not just serving rich people, then you need to have something that people can afford."

No word if Cook has recovered from Zuck's epic burn, though "rich people" have propelled Apple to revenues of nearly $230 billion in 2017 vs. Facebook's $40 billion generated almost entirely from advertising - and as we have come to learn, letting app developers have their way with our personal data and helping candidates they favor

Meanwhile, Zuck's been Sabo'd

While Facebook stock has been kneecapped to the tune of around 16% since the Cambridge Analytica story broke - and down 20% since February all-time highs, Mark Zuckerberg has been given "the treatment" by notorious conservative street artist, Sabo.

Banners reading "You can't watch your kids 24/7, but we can" were put up in Times Square and several other public locations on Monday night - along with fake street signs warning "Caution, Facebook sells your data."

Several of the signs feature a grotesque graphic of Zuckerberg's face melting into Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) - along with other mentions of the Senate Minority Leader whose daughter works for Facebook.

Sabo's hatred of Zuckerberg is nothing new - as the street artist plastered several posters around Pasadena last August reading "F*ck Zuck 2020" in response to rumors that the Facebook CEO was considering a run for President in 2020.

Meanwhile, artist and nephew of former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd painted a mural of Zuckerberg "forgetting his human mask."

What fun indeed - though maybe not so much for Mark. 

Comments

whatswhat1@yahoo.com Fredo Corleone Tue, 04/03/2018 - 20:08 Permalink

Good to know somebody at ZH is reading our posts.

I posted a link to Sabo's website hours before this story appeared.  Coincidence?

What do you think?

Take a look here: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-03/sprotts-rule-trade-war-will-d…

"enjoy!"  🔴🔵🔴🔵🔴🔵🔴🔵🔴🔵🔴🔵🔴🔵🔴🔵🔴🔵🔴🔵🔴🔵🔴🔵🔴🔵🔴🔵🔴🔵🔴🔵🔴🔵🔴🔵🔴🔵

 

In reply to by Fredo Corleone

shamus001 D503 Tue, 04/03/2018 - 20:53 Permalink

PayPal banned my account permanently for offering a bumpstock for sale on a third party site (GunBroker.com). Emailed me that if I removed my sale on gunbroker that my account would be reinstated! 15+ years and no infractions of any kind. PayPal is grossly anti American, and anti 2nd Amendment. If anyone knows of any laws that we're violated by this over reach, please let me know. I WILL NEVER stop exercising my rights, and thus PayPal can shove their money laundering (transfer) services up their @ss. I'll do business elsewhere, and you should too!

 

In reply to by D503

Koba the Dread shamus001 Tue, 04/03/2018 - 22:09 Permalink

Freaking out shamus? Don't! This is a liability thing. If you sell a bump stock and accept payment through PayPal and the buyer of the bump stock uses it to kill people, civil actions may be instituted against you. I assume you're moderately poor and a civil action wouldn't get much out of you.

However, PayPal has a very deep pocket. An action against it may not end up with a judgement against PayPal, but PayPal would pay a settlement just to avoid the hassle and expense of litigation.

Get off your high horse! PayPal is doing just what you would do, protecting itself against the possibility of a hostile attack.

In reply to by shamus001

shamus001 Koba the Dread Wed, 04/04/2018 - 00:11 Permalink

Koba, anyone can sue anyone for anything. Paypal serves as anonymous transfer between two parties and is not party to any business other than the business of moving money from A-B.  Bought a bat on Ebay?  Killed someone with that bat? What about a pair of scissors? A Katana? I've had a Katana forged in Japan and paid through PayPal. (700+dollars- 32,768 layers in that sword, true clay hamon...you get the picture)

No Koba... PayPal isn't concerned with liability due to facilitating transfers of monies (which can be done simply by entering your email address) This is a Fascist Liberal Corporation hell bent on inflicting their political bent on consumers who's political viewpoints are in direct opposition to their own. (like the NFL) we'd all be better off paying though Visa (until they try that crap)

Best of luck to you, no high horse here, try not to get bent out of shape while defending a multi-billion dollar corporations.... they're doing just fine without you.

P.S. the truly creepy part about all of this is that I sold the stock on another site, and the buyer sent me money through Paypal directly using my email address; there was no Paypal link from the sale tying the two together!  How do they know my seller account is my Paypal account and that "transfer A" is related to "Sale B"?  It's almost Orwellian !

In reply to by Koba the Dread

Endgame Napoleon Cash2Riches Tue, 04/03/2018 - 22:50 Permalink

I do not think Big Tech saw itself as too big to fail. They seemed to see it coming, especially the older ones who remembered the 2000 dot-com bubble pop.

I do not agree with Big Tech’s fakey globalist posturing at all, although I do like some of their products, like PayPal, for instance.

They had to finance those apps somehow. The internet used to be far more static, like Brave when adds are turned off. 

They hired all these Stanford PhDs and other tech geeks who made the internet a much smoother, more user-friendly thing. They had to pay all of those people. Ads paid them.

If what they gave other companies was more than just call logs, likes, email addresses and so forth, it would be more shocking. If what they did was so different than what other companies do, it would be more shocking.

Apple does not have to rely on advertising for revenue, but they make more money because a lot of people like the social media apps.

The disgusting thing is that so many of the jobs, deriving from technology that was pioneered in the USA, were shipped offshore, outsourced or filled with foreign temp workers, etc. 

But the pile on seems kind of cutthroat. It looks like a bunch of liberal companies, jockeying to put themselves in the best light, while tearing one down before Swamp testimony.

Kumbaya

 

In reply to by Cash2Riches

keep the basta… Truther Tue, 04/03/2018 - 22:03 Permalink

re "zio shill"

The Talmud states that everything belongs to {{us}}, that goys are born to serve and as animals cannot be buried in the earth.

Thus as swamp writes down below, zuck stole the 100s of man-hours, 10 million patent from the father of his next door dorm mate. Then stole all info from people. being cheap etc is just bullshit.

Thus google early on stated its mission was to  own every piece of information on the planet. and so its happening.

Thus wife of Brin founder of goog, owns 23andme, and the DNA rights of all who  pay for their services.

Thus her sister is involved in YT, owning and selling views to advertisers and controlling expression of content.

Hence Marx correspondence with rabbi... individual rights waived to collective, and rabbi wrote, good, makes it easy for {{us}} to take all.

and so it happened. jewish oligaths and the elite govts of us and uk stripped Russia clean in the 1990s. You can check {component} of uk govt online. Then came christian Putin and  the hatred of russia increased manifold.

That is the purpose of marxism/communism. Its talmudic.

I write this without judgement, merely sharing information that {they} are following their beliefs. Simple, clear big picture beliefs and get on with it.

 

In reply to by Truther

halcyon Truther Wed, 04/04/2018 - 00:20 Permalink

I was wondering why they wanted to bring down one of the biggest data harvesting operations. I mean, it was great for snooping.

Now it is clear.

It was to derail the Zuck2020 prez campaign before it had begun in earnest.

I think they were too early. People have short memories. This will pass by 2024. They should have waited and made it even a bigger fiasco for him.

This was no accident, but purely manufactured.

I wonder which DC PR agency they used?

 

In reply to by Truther

homeskillet booboo Wed, 04/04/2018 - 00:43 Permalink

Wrong. Hitler used the term first in Mein Kampf in 1925. Look it up. It’s in print. Goebbels used it in 1941. If you are going to spout off at least have your fucking facts straight. Not that it matters with these two shit stains. I read it in the beginning chapter of Mary’s Mosaic, who attributed it to Hitler as well. Ever hear of that book, son? I figured as much.

In reply to by booboo

Endgame Napoleon Hikikomori Tue, 04/03/2018 - 23:01 Permalink

Progressives also do not like that they got there early and made money on the app. They think it should be free, like Wikipedia, but they do like to post their fake feminist complaints and accusations on FB, in addition to ranting against racism. They just think the programmers should provide that service free of charge, just like college should be free, along with all of the expenses associated with childrearing.

In reply to by Hikikomori

the cork Tue, 04/03/2018 - 20:05 Permalink

Zuckerturd is just another GD liar.

None of the techs are above pulling that shit.

That's why nobody is sticking up for that guy.

They know. They're all doing the same damn thing.

With all the money to be made from selling us out, there's not ONE of those bastards that could leave it alone.

Endgame Napoleon the cork Tue, 04/03/2018 - 23:12 Permalink

How should they make money then? Should they just sell space, like Tyler does? People complain about that as well. They have to click off of the ads. They get spammed. It blocks the view. It is annoying, but then, so is tracking, just in a different way. Nothing would be ideal unless users were willing to pay a decent amount for a subscription. Then they would tailor everything to users’ preferences, removing all annoyances.

The thing that differentiates tracking from other annoyances is the possibility for government abuse. Silly, psychological profiles by campaigns on both sides of the political fence, assuming that voters are as malleable as clay, are not the same thing as any possible abuses by the NSA. People working on the Obama campaign staff or at Cambridge Analytica have no power over citizens, not even over how citizens vote, regardless of what they think. The NSA does. 

In reply to by the cork

Jethro Tue, 04/03/2018 - 20:17 Permalink

Anybody else find it wierd that everybody is just now catching on to all the stuff you've been telling them for the past 6 years? 

Bryan snblitz Tue, 04/03/2018 - 20:34 Permalink

Precisely.  You don't get "free" stuff on the internet.  You are paying for it by offering all your personal data for sale.  Zuck is just the scapegoat, and all the other CEOs are keeping quiet because they don't want to be next.  What's surprising about all this is how surprised everyone is.  Then again, FB didn't get outed until a non-Leftist company was caught using the data.  Go figure; not biased at all.

In reply to by snblitz