Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Forming a PAC

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the politics-is-the-worst-kind-of-social-networking dept.

Facebook 217

DougDot writes "According to a recent SFGate article, 'Social networking giant Facebook is expanding its political footprint, confirming that it has filed the necessary paperwork to open a political action committee in advance of the 2012 elections. The move is the latest in a series of maneuvers boosting the Palo Alto company's political profile in recent years, joining a steady rise in lobbying spending, several high-profile fundraisers and the failed statewide candidacy of one of its key officers for attorney general last year.' With 800 million users in its social network, and with very deep pockets, we could have a new, powerful Congress-influencing entity steering American politics."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good! I love it! (1)

xevioso (598654) | about 3 years ago | (#37606432)

As long as Zuckerberg doesn't start trying to get us to kill our own bison and eat it.

Re:Good! I love it! (1)

Call Me Black Cloud (616282) | about 3 years ago | (#37606454)

You have a bison? Good God, man, how big is your backyard? I can't walk up the stairs in my house without stepping on a cat - a bison would be right out!

Re:Good! I love it! (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 3 years ago | (#37607548)

Obviously he keeps it on the main floor. Everybody knows bison can't go up or down stairs.

Re:Good! I love it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608224)

They can go up normal stairs, but not spiral ones. However, they can go down either.

Re:Good! I love it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608782)

Bison can go up stairs... but good luck getting them to go down.

Re:Good! I love it! (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 3 years ago | (#37607254)

If you don't want it, I'll kill and eat your bison for you.

Re:Good! I love it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37607354)

I'm sorry, but love isn't a reaction you can express. (Neither is hated, dislike, or even mere neutrality.)

You can either Like this or shut the fuck up.

Re:Good! I love it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608290)

Fuck Zuckerberg, but I'll eat his Bison. Tastiest critter, ever.

This will be highly successful (2)

Call Me Black Cloud (616282) | about 3 years ago | (#37606442)


"Senator, we were browsing through your Facebook messages and noticed a few interesting exchanges with 14 year old girls, your mother-in-law, and a llama rancher. I'm sure you can now see your way clear to vote against additional consumer privacy safeguards."

Re:This will be highly successful (2)

Bucky24 (1943328) | about 3 years ago | (#37606712)

Heh, facebook owns the database. They could CREATE the messages if they wanted to.

Re:This will be highly successful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37606954)

They wouldn't have to create anything. They could selectively aggregate opinion from like-minded users.

Corporations, modern fiefdoms, are people too. [wordpress.com]

-- Ethanol-fueled, karma-banned.

Re:This will be highly successful (1)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 3 years ago | (#37606888)

That would be highly illegal and corrupt way of doing it!

A much simpler method is to donate money to the campaigns of politicians. No less corrupt but legal!

Re:This will be highly successful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37607080)

That would be highly illegal and corrupt way of doing it!

A much simpler method is to donate money to the campaigns of politicians. No less corrupt but legal!

wait, since when is illegal and corrupt bad ? all the cool kids would just laugh at you for being behind times.

Re:This will be highly successful (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 3 years ago | (#37607656)

since when is donating to candidates who have like minded opinions corrupt too? It's one of the cornerstones of most free political systems

Re:This will be highly successful (1)

ScentCone (795499) | about 3 years ago | (#37608020)

A much simpler method is to donate money to the campaigns of politicians. No less corrupt but legal!

>
Just out of curiosity, what is corrupt about supporting a candidate that you think is a better representative for what you think is important than is some other candidate? If I think that somone I like should be able to buy better signage or a more well-oiled campaign web presence, or less cheesy TV ads, etc., what is corrupt about pitching in?

Re:This will be highly successful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608700)

You know damn well.

I'll bet he goes for the GOP (4, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 years ago | (#37606446)

After all, Facebook boy would probably happily spend millions to get his federal income taxes - all $300.18 that he paid - refunded to him.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (5, Insightful)

ALeader71 (687693) | about 3 years ago | (#37606560)

After all, Facebook boy would probably happily spend millions to get his federal income taxes - all $300.18 that he paid - refunded to him.

I bet he goes for both parties as a lot of PACs do today. Why limit yourself, when both parties are equally malleable? All he has to do is make a case for job creation and the politicians will line up to hear his pitch (after collecting the checks of course).

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 3 years ago | (#37606658)

Most PACs, at least the more visible ones, tend to be disguised arms of political candidates and parties. Take the AARP for instance, They have never showed support for any republican concept in the last 20 years, unless it was in a primary contest and purposed by one of the lesser popular candidates. they drop that stand or ignore it in term elections.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37606932)

Yeah, the behavior or big corporations reminds me of a scene in the Woody Allen movie "Bananas". The CIA is sending in troop to a revolution in Latin America. One of the troops ask if they're going to fight for the government or the rebels. Their leader replies that this time the CIA is taking no changes - half the troops will be fighting for the government, and half fighting for the rebels. Basically, no matter which side wins, they have influence.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 3 years ago | (#37608904)

AFAIC if he paid $300.18 in income taxes he got majorly screwed. After all, 50% of population isn't paying federal income taxes, how unlucky is the guy to get into the wrong half of the population?

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37606582)

After all, Facebook boy would probably happily spend millions to get his federal income taxes - all $300.18 that he paid - refunded to him.

Zuckerberg is a Liberal - but that doesn't mean much. Liberal is just the banner the absurdly wealthy fly to get the gullible and naive on their side. They always use influence to their own interests, whether those interests require oppression or more votes to allow for that oppression is the only real factor when gauging how they interact with the rest of society. Just look at the war on the middle class - ie: small business owners that pose the largest threat in the world to upsetting the current balance of power held by the elite. Businesses really aren't the enemy, until they become huge and omnipotent - yet the largest group to cry out against businesses is the only group all the major business leaders are a part of - the democratic party. It's almost paradoxical, but then again the Nazi's were the socialist party - so if you look at what has repeatedly worked through the course of Human society to suck a civilization dry, it makes sense.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | about 3 years ago | (#37606680)

Godwined.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37607138)

New money may lean left but old money leans right. The absurdly wealthy individuals (new money) really have little wealth compared to the absurdly wealthy families (old money). Which group you side with is up to you. The only that earned the wealth or the one that inherited. Some people have always supported their Kings.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37607520)

Really?

When I look at the Forbes list, the top 3 (and 5 of the top 10) are what I would consider "new money". Bill, Warren, and Larry account for 45% of the value
of the top 10.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37607684)

The Nazis were NOT the socialist party. They were strongly anti-communist and the Strasserists, who were never all that powerful, were purged in the Night of the Long Knives. Learn your history, fascist

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608072)

The Nazis were NOT the socialist party. They were strongly anti-communist and the Strasserists, who were never all that powerful, were purged in the Night of the Long Knives. Learn your history, fascist

Stop trolling and learn yours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608278)

The Nazi's WERE Socialist. However, socialism inherently devolves into a society bent on cutting the unproductive at any cost - at least when it's not taking place in a state who's income is derived as an international bank (the Swiss). Ultimately Socialism only works so long as there are people to gut - when you run out of fresh meat the only recourse is to revert to a working system (has never happened without force in the history of mankind) or to start punishing lack of productivity until people are too scared not to work, even without hope for a better future. Socialism simply doesn't work, and the other areas of the left are just the diluted form of the events that occurred immediately prior to the holocaust. Over the years the democrats have tried to spin events in favor of things spiraling out of control after a duke was assassinated, but people are people - they weren't any crazier or dumber 2-4 generations ago than they are today - if you want to know what caused one of the most horrific events in Human history read about the events and the social precedences of the time, or vote democrat and watch first hand in your own lifetime.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608388)

Wow, you're really fucked up.

Do you even know the difference between the truth and a lie? Have you ever told the truth?

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 3 years ago | (#37608834)

It would also be helpful if he could keep his World Wars straight...

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 3 years ago | (#37608826)

The Nazis were many things. 'Socialist' was not among them.

Yes, 'Socialist' appeared in the official name. No, it did not mean anything.

In fact, real Marxists were amongst the first to get rounded up and put into camps. Or shot.

So please STFU and go read (and not skim) some history.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608892)

The Nazis were many things. 'Socialist' was not among them.

Yes, 'Socialist' appeared in the official name. No, it did not mean anything.

Just like "democrat" appears in the name of the "democratic party" yet the leaders of the organization lack any symbolism of democracy in their legislation and enforcement/repeal thereof.

The ideals used to gain political power are always the same, as is the fact they are unrealistic and anyone attempting to campaign around them is short-sighted, simple-minded and evil enough to build a new holocaust to save their own skin for as long as possible.

In fact, real Marxists were amongst the first to get rounded up and put into camps. Or shot.

Marxists are not socialists, and I never claimed they were.

So please STFU and go read (and not skim) some history.

Your show of emotion is irrelevant and does not change my grasp of history, and I'd suspect the average intellect of a /. reader to be at least high enough to read for themselves and find the facts - sadly you don't seem to reach that bar.

Probably neither party with Democratic leanings (2)

Dragon Bait (997809) | about 3 years ago | (#37606708)

In 2008, Zuckerberg hosted Obama [reuters.com] .

According to open secrets, Facebook employees support Democrats 97% of the time. [opensecrets.org] But Zuckerberg personally hadn't donated enough to show up on the Fed's radar in 2008 or 2010.

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 years ago | (#37606808)

In 2008, Zuckerberg hosted Obama.

That could have just as well been a PR stunt for him. That, and he wasn't worth quite as much money then, either. But really, if you are trying to draw attention to your company and you have a choice between a geriatric white guy or the first black guy to win the presidential endorsement from a major party in our country, the choice is obvious.

According to open secrets, Facebook employees support Democrats 97% of the time. But Zuckerberg personally hadn't donated enough to show up on the Fed's radar in 2008 or 2010.

I would advise against confusing facebook employees and their politics with those of the head of facebook. I haven't heard of any other billionaires from that company.

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings (1, Informative)

prostoalex (308614) | about 3 years ago | (#37607360)

* Any time somebody votes GOP, they do it out of money
* Any time somebody votes Democrat, they do it out of goodness of their heart and pristine beauty of their souls

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings (2)

sanzibar (2043920) | about 3 years ago | (#37608044)

attempt at /sarc or do you really believe the crap they sell u?

March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”
October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”
February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race
April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans
February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote
August 18, 1920 Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures
January 26, 1922 House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster
October 3, 1924 Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention
June 12, 1929 First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country
August 17, 1937 Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation
August 8, 1945 Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”
March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation
November 6, 1956 African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President
June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate
February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII
September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

more... http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/ [black-and-right.com]

Conservative Democrats (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608504)

Uh . . . you do realize that all those Democrats you are quoting switched to the Republican party in the '60s and '70s, don't you? Look up "Solid South." It's probably too complicated for you, but it's the same people that are now Republicans. They just switched parties.

So basically you are admitting that what has become today's Republican party is a bunch of fascists. Nice one.

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings (1)

sanzibar (2043920) | about 3 years ago | (#37608124)

"out of goodness of their heart and pristine beauty of their souls" ....

October 22 1868, a Democratic Party official and Klansman assassinated a Republican U.S. Representative. The victim was James Hinds, of Arkansas, gunned down while campaigning for re-election. Hinds had incurred the wrath of the Democratic Party by speaking in defense of African-Americans.

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37607704)

In 2008, Zuckerberg hosted Obama.

That could have just as well been a PR stunt for him.

No, no self-respecting Republican would ever do any greater respect to Obama than acknowledging him with a raised middle finger.

I would advise against confusing facebook employees and their politics with those of the head of facebook. I haven't heard of any other billionaires from that company.

I haven't heard of many (any) billionaires that are Republican. Millionaires, yes, but that's because the Republican party is the small business leader party, when you're too small to want to pander to everyone and just want to be able to survive. The Liberal side is for more matured money, that thinks ahead to securing the generations of future degenerate offspring that wouldn't know how to wipe their own ass, let alone manage a billion-dollar organization - and of course the naive supporters they influence with the same creed as the Nazi's (ie: socialism + responsibility for the affairs of others - incase the stigma of the subject has kept you from ever reading what the Nazi's actually stood for - delusion of a different time, Liberal in modern jargon).

I have read Hitler's writings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608238)

He hated socialists and Marxists. He railed against them endlessly. He hated immigrants, homosexuals, and non-Christians. He sounded very similar to the American conservatives of today.

Re:I have read Hitler's writings (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608584)

No you haven't, here are facts in rebuttal of you're defamatory statements:

He hated socialists and Marxists. He railed against them endlessly.

Political party National Socialist German Workers' Party (1921–1945)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

He hated immigrants, homosexuals, and non-Christians.

"Although not mentioned in public, Hitler had a plan conceived before the Nazis even came to power, to subvert and ultimately destroy Christianity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views#Views_as_an_adult

He sounded very similar to the American conservatives of today.

This point has been well-addressed within this thread already, and could not be further from the truth:
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2459998&cid=37608044

Why must every liberal pretend to know a subject and never actually know it?
It's like you can see the inherent wisdom in accepting truth, yet at the same time demand that you yourself lack that wisdom.

Re:I have read Hitler's writings (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 3 years ago | (#37608958)

Hitler was the sort of creature who would say anything to (or against) anybody in order to achieve power*.

Attempting to discuss his 'hates' is therefore a fruitless exercise.

(*And thus, just the sort whom people like our idiot "Liberals = Nazis" friend are likely to end up following, since such types know how to push all the right verbal/semantic/emotional buttons of those who are too bloody dense to realise that this is in fact exactly what they're doing.)

Hitler quotes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608344)

Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country] ... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity ... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press—in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... [few] years.

--The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922–1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pp. 871–872.

I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter.

--Adolf Hitler, Munich speech of April 12, 1922

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37609004)

> But really, if you are trying to draw attention to your company and you have a choice
> between a geriatric white guy or the first black guy to win the presidential endorsement
> from a major party in our country, the choice is obvious.

Ah, so discrimination isn't dead in the USA I see.

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 3 years ago | (#37607746)

According to open secrets, Facebook employees support Democrats 97% of the time.

Don't employees of all large tech companies predominantly vote Democrat? I'm pretty sure I've seen similar statistics regarding Apple, Google and Microsoft, to name a few.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37606804)

I thought all you GOP haters thought that only Bible thumpers were Republicans. Zucker is an atheist. According to your ilk he'd be taken out and burned at the stake for such a crime if the GOP had their way.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37607288)

I thought all you GOP haters thought that only Bible thumpers were Republicans.

You thought wrong. You're making the same mistake as the post you're replying to, stop being so presumptuous.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (0)

dvdwholesale3 (2432850) | about 3 years ago | (#37607516)

P90x is an extremely intense program.Sheer will and determination may get you to the finish line,but to achieve the best results,youâ(TM)ve got to have the proper quality and quantity of nutrition.We make these supplements optional,so you have a choice.But know that P90x supplements were designed for this program and will supply your body with the necessary nutrients to give you added strength energy,and stamina for each workout. As you may notice from the math on the following pages,P90x is not bulit around adaily âoecalorie deficitâ for weight loss like the general Beachbody plans found in Power 90,Kathy Smitsâ(TM)s Project :You!Type 2,and Slimin 6.Itâ(TM)s important that you understand why ,so you have the right training mentality with this program ,with the right expectations. http://exercisefitness-dvds.com/ [exercisefitness-dvds.com]

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37607984)

I think its a old news. Read Here:
http://www.techgineering.org/2011/09/27/2680/facebook-to-add-its-own-pac-political-action-committee-registered-fbpac-org-and-fbpac-us/

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608034)

Big business owns, and loves, Obama, just like Clinton before him.

Don't buy into that silly myth that the dems are the party of the people. Look at the actual evidence.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP (1)

homer_ca (144738) | about 3 years ago | (#37608332)

Big money bets on whoever's going to win. The Republicans do their bidding unabashedly, while the Democrats pay lip service to their base before doing their bidding.

800.000.000 users in its network (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37606448)

So you expect all of them to contribute to this PAC, even if they are not US citizens?

Re:800.000.000 users in its network (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37607362)

Can't we get a new Slashdot meme? The whole 'not everyone lives in the U.S.' is old. Very old. I also find it kind of sad.

Re:800.000.000 users in its network (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608518)

That's right. Because obviously everyone does live in the U.S.!

Fucking moron.

Re:800.000.000 users in its network (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 3 years ago | (#37608968)

Not even all Americans live in the US.

(And from Stockholm I bid you a hearty US Grade-A Go Fuck Yourself.)

ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37606450)

And what are the odds that Facebook PAC will represent its users? About zero.

Re:ugh (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37606506)

And what are the odds that Facebook PAC will represent its users? About zero.

What are the chances that the sole purpose of this PAC is to loosen privacy laws so as to aid spying on it's users? Very high.

Re:ugh (1)

electron sponge (1758814) | about 3 years ago | (#37606728)

And what are the odds that Facebook PAC will represent its users? About zero.

What are the chances that the sole purpose of this PAC is to loosen privacy laws so as to aid spying on it's users? Very high.

+1 Insightful.

This PAC is about nothing else except protecting Facebook's golden-egg-laying goose.

Re:ugh (1)

game kid (805301) | about 3 years ago | (#37607052)

Which "users", the common folk or the brand-name advertisers?

The Koch Bros of social networking (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 3 years ago | (#37606466)

First on the agenda, make privacy illegal, and put anybody that desires it on the no-fly list and tag them as un-American terrorists

Re:The Koch Bros of social networking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37606522)

Where have you been living the last 30 years? Privacy is dead, google it. And those people are already on the list, tagged as un-American terrorists.

Re:The Koch Bros of social networking (1)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | about 3 years ago | (#37606610)

Privacy is not dead. What we have is the failure of open-source distribution engines to provide a way to interact socially... in private. What is Facebook more then some storage and ssh-sessions between friends? Is it as easy as using Facebook? why not - Facebook is just a freaking email thread and a picture viewer! Privacy is down, but not out!

Brilliant? Not. (1)

erick99 (743982) | about 3 years ago | (#37606484)

Another brilliant PR move by FaceBook. Stepping on their collective dicks seems to be a growing trend within the company.

Re:Brilliant? Not. (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | about 3 years ago | (#37606604)

The don't have much of a choice. It's either pay up you r lobbyists and campaign contributions, or be trampled. Politics has become a racket.

Re:Brilliant? Not. (2)

Dragon Bait (997809) | about 3 years ago | (#37606738)

The don't have much of a choice. It's either pay up you r lobbyists and campaign contributions, or be trampled. Politics has become a racket.

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. -- P. J. O'Rourke

An honest politician is one who, when he's bought, stays bought. -- Simon Cameron

Re:Brilliant? Not. (1)

electron sponge (1758814) | about 3 years ago | (#37606770)

Politics has become a racket.

You say that like it's something new. Politics has always been a racket, as long as there's been money to grease palms. And before that I'm sure they worked out some sort of barter.

Re:Brilliant? Not. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 3 years ago | (#37606632)

You know, when a company or organization has a large volunteer base of affiliates, its just a matter of time before someone gets the idea of exploiting it for political gain.

The interesting thing here might be the ability of political candidates to use the service within their campaigns or not in the future. Maybe that is what they are looking for.

I could use some representation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37606578)

Oh nice, another company influencing government.
When can I get a PAC of my own?

Also: http://occupywallst.org/

Re:I could use some representation (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | about 3 years ago | (#37606630)

Oh nice, another company influencing government.
When can I get a PAC of my own?

When you are very rich, or when you are modestly rich and agree with an existing PAC.

Re:I could use some representation (1)

Dragon Bait (997809) | about 3 years ago | (#37606774)

Oh nice, another company influencing government. When can I get a PAC of my own?

Nothing stops you from forming your own PAC now. Without a lot of seed money, you'll have to work that much harder to make it influential. But a PAC with a 1,000 people donating $10 is worth more than a PAC with 1 person donating $10,000.

I can see it already (1)

mirix (1649853) | about 3 years ago | (#37606724)

Vote for [anti-privacy interests] this election!!

If you do not copy and paste this in your status you facebook account will be closed!!~!!~!

Re:I can see it already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37607074)

One could only hope it was that simple to get rid of facebook!

Bribery Tax (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 3 years ago | (#37606736)

Tax any compaign donation above $50 at 75% Thus, a donation of $200 would have a tax of $112.50 (200 - 50 = 150; 150 * 0.75 = 112.5).

Re:Bribery Tax (1)

Alex Belits (437) | about 3 years ago | (#37606846)

No. Tax the contributor at 2000%, and use this tax for public-funded election campaigns.
That will stop bribery.

Re:Bribery Tax (1)

prostoalex (308614) | about 3 years ago | (#37607038)

Tax all people who cannot spell "campaign" and run elections on that money instead of donations.

Re:Bribery Tax (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 3 years ago | (#37607416)

I kant uze Fyrefox's spail chekker for teknicle reezons.

Re:Bribery Tax (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | about 3 years ago | (#37607744)

yeah, but you CAN use chrome.

Re:Bribery Tax (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 3 years ago | (#37608940)

Wut our yu, mie muthur?

Facebook (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37606768)

Thy name is Flashback.

Congress better police Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37606928)

~Not the other way around.

Re:Congress better police Facebook (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 3 years ago | (#37607602)

~Not the other way around.

That's a laugh. Who's policing Congress? More importantly, what makes you think you actually have the power or control anymore to do jack shit about it?

Keeing The Feds off of Your Back (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 3 years ago | (#37607034)

This is probably all about keeping the feds off of Zukerberg's backside. While he's a huge Obama supporter, he's also a target of the current administration because he is one of the Evil Rich. In addition, with Obama's re-election chances looking less certain than Facebook's privacy promises, he may well need to CYA with the next administration as soon as 2013.

Re:Keeing The Feds off of Your Back (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | about 3 years ago | (#37607478)

This may be a little off-topic, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think Obama is a lock for reelection. The Republicans were able to take so many congressional seats in 2010 because less people voted. When Obama's name is on the ticket hordes of people will make it to the polls who didn't bother with the midterm elections. Republicans just make it to the polls more consistently.

Re:Keeing The Feds off of Your Back (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 3 years ago | (#37607710)

not really. Obama didn't win by a lot in comparative terms to previous elections. he's probably not going to be able to generate near the support he had originally to get elected.

in fact, he's likely caused a surge in potential turn out against him. I know life long democrats who do nothing but complain about Obama every time the name is brought up.

Re:Keeing The Feds off of Your Back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608346)

And you're vastly underestimating the number of people who voted for Obama just so they could tell their kids that they helped elect the first african-american president. It was a historic event, and many people wanted to be a part of it.

Re-electing Obama, unfortunately for him, is a far less significant event. And telling one's children "I helped re-elect the first african-american president" carries far less weight.

Re:Keeing The Feds off of Your Back (1)

similar_name (1164087) | about 3 years ago | (#37607518)

This is probably all about keeping the feds off of Zukerberg's backside.

Insightful.

he's also a target of the current administration because he is one of the Evil Rich.

sigh

In addition, with Obama's re-election chances looking less certain than Facebook's privacy promises

With 13 months until the election the news channels will be sure to play it out like a long soap opera but you are probably correct. It is likely voter turnout will be driven by dissatisfaction which doesn't bode well for the sitting President.

, he may well need to CYA with the next administration as soon as 2013.

As privacy groups bring up issues and try to push Congress to enact legislation controlling data storage/usage he needs to cover his ass no matter which party controls Congress. It also doesn't hurt to influence a government that influences so many other governments.

Pffft. (1)

Kleen13 (1006327) | about 3 years ago | (#37607110)

And you all thought it'd be Skynet.....

A bit ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37607118)

A bit ironic considering OccupyWallStreet and its affiliated protest groups are using it to organize to protest the very thing that Facebook is now working to do.

PAC = Bribes and Payoffs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37607628)

Just ask us to''do'it.

I do not understand... (5, Interesting)

cjcela (1539859) | about 3 years ago | (#37607716)

..how many of the people posting take this so lightly. There should be outrage here. Companies bearing weight on congress is not a good idea, people. Maybe many of you are too young to see what is going on, but the idea is that the country is governed by the people and for the people, not by Mr. Facebook for his company. And while you have 20 seconds of laugh writing a funny post, your future is eroding right in front of your eyes, and you are completely oblivious to it...

maybe you should read the modded down comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37607804)

Just saying...

Re:I do not understand... (1)

ScentCone (795499) | about 3 years ago | (#37608078)

Actually, the erosion I've noticed is in the awareness that it's people that form, invest in, work for, and patronize companies.

Re:I do not understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608120)

Congress bears weight on companies and much more than the other way around. Companies are formed by people called shareholders. Those people have rights. Some of those rights are: no taxation without representation, redress of grievances, pursuit of happiness, and due process of law. But most germane to your particular post is that the people have the right to petition congress. That those people have become part owners of a company does not cause them to forsake their constitutional rights.

Regards,
Jason C. Wells

Re:I do not understand... (1)

anon208 (2410460) | about 3 years ago | (#37608150)

Actually, I have already given up on this country. Long live China!

Re:I do not understand... (1)

ThermalRunaway (1766412) | about 3 years ago | (#37608650)

Like the outrage about unions doing the same thing for the past decades? I dont think its right in either case. But if a union can form a PAC and donate to and lobby candidates/elected officials, its not any different for a company to do it too. Personally I'd rather see neither allowed...

Oh dear. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37607750)

I don't like where this is going.

Signpost (1)

JWW (79176) | about 3 years ago | (#37607888)

In the future, we will look back on this as another signpost on the path of Facebook's fall.....

woohoo! (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | about 3 years ago | (#37608000)

facebook for president!

I Like (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608208)

I see a new way to vote coming out of this. Imagine electing our most 'likeable' president. We could all friend him or her and put our president on our wall. We could join the presidential fan page. Most of all, we could ignore the mess that we now call the American economy and spend all our time on Facebook instead of working for the man. Escapism is a wonderful thing UNTIL YOU NEED TO PAY THE BILLS.

Event Horizon (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37608810)

Delete your accounts now while you still have a chance

1. Facebook forms PAC
2. PAC gets no where so Facebook heavily sponsors/brainwashes and gets a new president in power
3. Facebook goes to war with China because the Chinese firewall is blocking its site
4. China beats Facebooks arse and takes over the world
5. China is pissed at the West and rightly so - they actively seek out and execute all Facebook employees
6. Westerners are outraged but still cant shut the hell up - trolling and lack of respect has become so entrenched in our society that even the Facebook war was not enough to eradicate it
7. China realises that the only way to keep control is to systematically execute all facebook uses - and hey it has a bonus effect of been extra green
8. The planet breaths a sigh of relief 800 million less parasites making a mess - but you wont be one of them - because you didn't delete your Facebook account!!!!

DO IT NOW WHILE YOU STILL HAVE A CHANCE - Save yourselves and God have mercy on our souls

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?