Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a hoax

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is sitting in Hotset.

There are many cameras surrounded by him. Zuckerberg has testified in a five-hour session in the US Congress about the scandal concerning the contents of the ongoing Cambridge Analyte.

Finally, the reluctant Facebook executive had to answer some questions. Otherwise the hearing was a failure. It's sorted out to fail.

It was a show that was arranged for Facebook chief to be released from Washington DC after a few hours.

This was a show where pre-hearing had been preoccupied. It has been arranged for changes and confusion.

Each senator has been given less than five minutes to ask questions. This means that there was no chance for follow-up.

There was no scope for even bigger disclosures, and unfortunately, some ideas of raising half of it came out of here. It can be compared to Bill Gates's Microsoft hearing, in order that he will be prosecuted for a few days by lawyers and officials

Confronted with the Kefauver hearing that has been going on for a year. According to the plan, you can not make a hearing of this level in one day.

For us as a citizen, this was the worst moment of hearing when Senators questioned whether Zuckerberg will support the law that can control Facebook.

I do not care if Zuckerberg supports 'honest' advertising, privacy law or general information protection control (GDPR) etc.

Whether he supports the creation of the law, the senators have approached Zakirbagh by asking him to become such a philosophical emperor, whose opinion in the control of Facebook carries a special status. It can not be acceptable.

Facebook is known exclusively as a corporate hart. It has disclosed personal secrets to at least 870 million people, spreading foreign propaganda and making the discrimination permanent.

We should not ask for Facebook's approval of the law or promise to make Zuckerberg's self-control. We should consider him as a danger to democracy and demand our senators to get a true hearing.

The best senators have understood that this was a show and they saw it as they were. Senator John Kennedy has said, your user agreement is being broken.

On the other hand, Senator Lindsay Graham asked, are you monopolistic? Zuckerberg has a humorous answer, he does not feel like this. Senator Richard Blum-Menthol said, "Our law is not required, commitment or forgiveness."

As every senator was under five minutes, Zuckerberg tried to keep his watch, his vision, or whatever he believed, to keep the watch intact.

There were some good questions in the hearing; But there was absolutely no chance for follow-up to run. You can measure Zuckerberg very well as a good trainer for time calculations.

When talking about less excited things, he was making a time-out.

For example, both Senator Hironi and Booker have presented abusive reports made by Julia Angwin in 'ProPublica', where employers and homeowners are using Facebook to promote discrimination advertising.

Zuckerberg said on behalf of the company that they were tough about them and they relied on community-based obligations to stop them.

The tools Facebook is using makes it easy to discriminate. Facebook has a profit margin. So, it can easily do the job of protecting against discrimination. But Facebook does not want to do that.

Heronie and Booker could show this in the hearing; But they had only a few minutes to ask questions like other senators.

Zuckerberg gave a vague answer to the questions. His comments were 'important' or 'interesting' or 'an important discussion can be made' - by giving such answers, he wasted time.

Some hearings seem to have been arranged in such a way that Zuckerberg is aiming to find out how good or bad a man is or is it good, bad, or even bizarre.

Zuckerberg has hit me as a trusted man in self-service. It did not, however, make him the CEO of an exclusive corporate house; Rather, he was an ordinary industrialist.

Asking Zacarbagh for such a philosophical question as to how we can deal with hate-related questions, it means to honor him as an acceptable philosopher and eminent teacher.

Accepting his failures in domestic discrimination advertising means that he is considered to be a good-minded actor in limited resources instead of a hundred dollar profit-making monstrous trader.

In my view, we need to break Facebook relations with Instagram and other potential competitors who have bought Facebook.

At least a few steps should be taken, though we need to take some steps. We should blame Facebook for opening the path of discrimination. Our ability to change information and use.

But this is not enough. Facebook has many things that we do not know. We know, we have a corporate house that has violated the rules of multiple times, causing our democracy