Lock Him Up: Why Wyden Says Zuckerberg needs ‘Prison Term’

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) blurts out his most outspoken criticism yet of Mark Zuckerberg. The Facebook CEO stands accused of lying to and hurting the American people.

I’m not 100% sure those are specific crimes. But the good senator from the Beaver State seems to think Zuck could get jail time for it.

Politics aside, it seems like a tempting narrative for many net denizens who feel their privacy invaded. In today’s SB Blogwatch, we fly with our own wings.

Your humble blogwatcher curated these bloggy bits for your entertainment. Not to mention: SophiaWorld.


‘They Trust Me’

What’s the craic? Sen. Ron Wyden—chatting with Aaron Mesh and Mark Zusman—implied, “He’s Interested in Sending Mark Zuckerberg to Prison”:

 Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly lied to the American people … about privacy. … He ought to be held personally accountable, which is everything from financial fines to … the possibility of a prison term. Because he hurt a lot of people.

There is a precedent for this: In financial services, if the CEO and the executives lie about the financials, they can be held personally accountable.

There’s no question about it. [U.S.C. Section 230] has been used by the powerful to their advantage. Facebook is a perfect example.

Bay Area … tech companies … have done practically everything wrong since the 2016 election. [They] have really let the country down by taking full advantage of the shield and dawdling around on the sword.

I’m looking for more ways to create market pressure on the big tech companies to take moderation more seriously. [We need] reforms that don’t throw the First Amendment in the trash.

Section 230? Remind me. Timothy B. Lee explains what “Ron Wyden (D-OR) said”:

 Wyden was talking … about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that gives online platforms like Facebook broad immunity for content posted by their users. Wyden was the co-author of the law and has been one of its most ardent defenders.

The law has come under increasing criticism as concern has grown about toxic online content. … Wyden worries that more aggressive efforts to root out toxic content online would [discard] the First Amendment.

Section 230 was fairly uncontroversial … when the Internet was new and not yet ubiquitous. Most people thought it made sense to shield Internet platforms.

[But] the downsides … have become more obvious. Major online platforms have responded by beefing up their moderation policies. But critics on both the left and the right have criticized their policies.

Wyden argues that the solution is more vigorous enforcement of laws that do still apply to … privacy violations [for example]. … The main US regulator on privacy issues is the Federal Trade Commission, which levied a historic $5 billion fine on Facebook in July.

Media reports suggest that the FTC sought provisions that would have held Zuckerberg personally liable. … But Facebook staunchly resisted … and ultimately won a settlement that didn’t touch Zuckerberg personally.

Oh, yeah—the CDA. I remember now. So does Jeff Evans:

 Section 230 dates back to a time when users dialed in to service providers, and telecom companies that sat between ISPs and their customers didn’t want to be sued when ISP customers sent kiddie porn over phone circuits. It was never meant to protect businesses centered around providing content and not simply providing connectivity.

Start by having the law treat Facebook as what it is, a de-facto publisher. The ability to self-publish to a selected audience is how it entices users.

Do you agree with Wyden? Daniel Pennell does—literally:

 I literally never agree with Wyden on anything. But I think Zuckerberg has created a monster that’s reckless and out of control. Or, actually, controlled by bad people.

Zuckerberg is clearly hoping government will come in and save him from himself. I don’t want that.

What I do want is a fair arbiter of language and posts. Zuckerberg can’t do that. He’s too biased.

Wait. Pause. Jailed for what? For lying? ColdWetDog jumps on your lap:

 If lying to the ‘American People’ was a criminal act with jail time associated with it then the entirety of Congress, both past and present, the entirety of the Executive branch, both past and present, the entirety of the Supreme Court … both past and present, and pretty much any corporate executive that managed to get enough air time to meet some threshold of notoriety, should be tossed in the clink.

I don’t like Zuck, he’s a dangerous idiot. And I generally like Wyden’s stance on things, but lets get real here. We should just burn him.

But, as Shannon Jacobs points out, “Post-facto criminalization is not valid”:

 What Facebook has been doing certainly should be illegal, ASAP. Facebook is deliberately encouraging people to reveal personal information and then appropriating that information for Facebook’s use and profit.

The general solution approach seems to be obvious, but I admit I see no way to get there from here. … If personal information was regarded as personal property, then possessing your property should require your permission or a warrant.

“Post-facto”? Joe Tone—@joebinsrca—alleges that’s not it:

 He lied under oath. The ONLY reason he wouldn’t is because there is clearly a two tiered justice system that dictates only poor people get prosecuted.

The rich and powerful will always get away. Evidence Comey, McCabe and even Epstein for 2 decades before the feds were forced.

But Nolo Contendere pleas for a different bargain:

 I thought the Senator was pretty restrained. I was thinking more along the lines of Mark Zuckerberg should face the possibility of being dragged along a gravel road behind a pickup truck.

Come to think of it, does Google have enough self driving StreetView cars to accommodate their management team? And enough tow rope?

But why Zuckerberg? keddaw fries bigger fish:

 Tobacco execs hid the cancer-causing properties of their products.
Oil execs hid the impact burning fossil fuels has on the climate.
Pharma execs pushed deadly drugs.
Detroit execs pushed back against seat belts and airbags.
etc.

But sure, let’s start with Zuck.

Meanwhile, @FirstInEngine can’t seem to choose:

 Don’t know who I despise more the sneaky lying clowns in congress or the deceitful POS who run the social platforms.

And Finally:

“SophiaWorld” is Westworld Meets Reality

Hat tip: DUST.


You have been reading SB Blogwatch by Richi Jennings. Richi curates the best bloggy bits, finest forums, and weirdest websites… so you don’t have to. Hate mail may be directed to @RiCHi or [email protected]. Ask your doctor before reading. Your mileage may vary. E&OE.

Image source: DonkeyHotey (cc:by)

Richi Jennings

Richi Jennings

Richi Jennings is a foolish independent industry analyst, editor, and content strategist. A former developer and marketer, he’s also written or edited for Computerworld, Microsoft, Cisco, Micro Focus, HashiCorp, Ferris Research, Osterman Research, Orthogonal Thinking, Native Trust, Elgan Media, Petri, Cyren, Agari, Webroot, HP, HPE, NetApp on Forbes and CIO.com. Bizarrely, his ridiculous work has even won awards from the American Society of Business Publication Editors, ABM/Jesse H. Neal, and B2B Magazine.

richi has 595 posts and counting.See all posts by richi