# AOC as James Mason in The Verdict - Not a Good Look **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 25, 2019, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289 "2019-10-25T18:34:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/81 "2019-10-29T01:37:41Z")
> [@Annoyed](#): > > :rolleyes: > > I know damn well what the difference is. The problem is that when talking about politicians, it’s their job to lie, spin, and talk complete shit. Talking about politics and politicians is in its purist form, a lesson in opinions. > > Talking about science, or math, or things that are definitive, those are facts. > > Climate change? Sure, it’s real. Been real since the beginning of time, and sure mankind is having an effect on it, but it is NOT settled science as to our role, and as soon as politicians get involved and are using it as a campaign tool - opinions abound and all beneficial to the politician. And that is still an opinion, the reality is that your sorry sources of information are the ones that are stupidly hung up about “the science is not settled” so we should ignore it… not! > **[Is the science settled?](https://skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm)** > > \Science is never 100% settled - science is about narrowing uncertainty. Different areas of science are understood with varying degrees of certainty. For example, we have a lower understanding of the effect of aerosols while we have a high... > [@](#): > > Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not “settled”. But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”. > > The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken. This sounds reasonable enough – but by the time scientific results are offered up to policymakers, they have already been checked and double-checked and quintuple-checked. > > Scientists have been predicting AGW, with increasing confidence, for decades (indeed, the idea was first proposed in 1896). By the 1970s, the scientific community were becoming concerned that human activity was changing the climate, but were divided on whether this would cause a net warming or cooling. As science learned more about the climate system, a consensus gradually emerged. Many different lines of inquiry all converged on the IPCC’s 2007 conclusion that it is more than 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming. > > Some aspects of the science of AGW are known with near 100% certainty. The greenhouse effect itself is as established a phenomenon as any: it was discovered in the 1820s and the basic physics was essentially understood by the 1950s. There is no reasonable doubt that the global climate is warming. And there is also a clear trail of evidence leading to the conclusion that it’s caused by our greenhouse gas emissions. > **[RealClimate: Unsettled Science](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/)** > > RealClimate: Unusually, I'm in complete agreement with a recent headline on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page: "The Climate Science Isn't Settled" The article below is the same mix of innuendo and misrepresentation that its author normally writes,... > [@](#): > > The phrase “the science is settled” is associated almost 100% with contrarian comments on climate and is usually a paraphrase of what ‘some scientists’ are supposed to have said. The reality is that it depends very much on what you are talking about and I have never heard any scientist say this in any general context – at a recent meeting I was at, someone claimed that this had been said by the participants and he was roundly shouted down by the assembled experts. > \*\* > The reason why no scientist has said this is because they know full well that knowledge about science is not binary – science isn’t either settled or not settled. This is a false and misleading dichotomy. Instead, we know things with varying degrees of confidence – for instance, conservation of energy is pretty well accepted, as is the theory of gravity (despite continuing interest in what happens at very small scales or very high energies) , while the exact nature of dark matter is still unclear. The forced binary distinction implicit in the phrase is designed to misleadingly relegate anything about which there is still uncertainty to the category of completely unknown. i.e. that since we don’t know everything, we know nothing.\*\* > > In the climate field, there are a number of issues which are no longer subject to fundamental debate in the community. The existence of the greenhouse effect, the increase in CO2 (and other GHGs) over the last hundred years and its human cause, and the fact the planet warmed significantly over the 20th Century are not much in doubt. IPCC described these factors as ‘virtually certain’ or ‘unequivocal’. The attribution of the warming over the last 50 years to human activity is also pretty well established – that is ‘highly likely’ and the anticipation that further warming will continue as CO2 levels continue to rise is a well supported conclusion. To the extent that anyone has said that the scientific debate is over, this is what they are referring to. In answer to colloquial questions like “Is anthropogenic warming real?”, the answer is yes with high confidence. > > But no scientists would be scientists if they thought there was nothing left to find out. Think of the science as a large building, with foundations reaching back to the 19th Century and a whole edifice of knowledge built upon them. The community spends most of its time trying to add a brick here or a brick there and slowly adding to the construction. **The idea that the ‘science is settled’ is equivalent to stating that the building is complete and that nothing further can be added. Obviously that is false – new bricks (and windows and decoration and interior designs) are being added and argued about all the time. However, while the science may not be settled, we can still tell what kind of building we have and what the overall picture looks like. Arguments over whether a single brick should be blue or yellow don’t change the building from a skyscraper to a mud hut.** -Gavin A. Schmidt, climatologist, climate modeler and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/82 "2019-10-29T01:37:58Z")
> [@Annoyed](#): > > :rolleyes: > > I know damn well what the difference is. The problem is that when talking about politicians, it’s their job to lie, spin, and talk complete shit. Talking about politics and politicians is in its purist form, a lesson in opinions. > > Talking about science, or math, or things that are definitive, those are facts. > > Climate change? Sure, it’s real. Been real since the beginning of time, and sure mankind is having an effect on it, but it is NOT settled science as to our role, and as soon as politicians get involved and are using it as a campaign tool - opinions abound and all beneficial to the politician. Perhaps, and unfortunately if so, true. Regardless, if you believe it is “not settled science as to our role”, the last thing you should want to do is make that very question itself a political one. Yet by stifling research and repudiating scientific conclusions, Trump and the Republicans have done just that. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/83 "2019-10-29T04:02:44Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > But calling us the gatekeeper ignores a fundamental truth: we are only the gatekeeper for people who choose to let us be. \*\*It is incredibly easy to avoid all of the propaganda, all of the lies, all of the falsehoods, and all of the offensive material \*\*that might appear in political advertising on our site by simply shutting your account. …unfortunately My Zuckerberg, I have exceeded my time. So for the time that I have remaining I would like to address this particular point. You claim that it is incredibly easy to avoid all of the propaganda, all of the lies, all of the falsehoods. I think that it is incredibly easy for \*\*you \*\*to avoid propaganda. You come from a life of privilege. A white man living in a country that was founded on white supremacy. You have a net worth of 69 billion dollars. Can you avoid propaganda? Can you recognize what is a lie, or what is a falsehood? I have no doubt that you can. I have no doubt that whatever happens at the next election, you are going to be just fine. You point to free speech, to the constitution, that this will protect the American people from obvious lies and propaganda. But this is nothing more than white American Exceptionalism. The constitution was drafted centuries ago by a group of long-dead-white-men and it served their purposes well. We live in a nation that stands by the principles and practically worships the “founding fathers” while it does everything it can to keep power away from indigenous peoples and the marginalised. We are witnessing what happens when an international crime consortium takes over the executive branch of government. We are discovering exactly how fragile this democracy actually is. The constitution was never representative of the will of the people. The constitution will protect people like you. It was drafted by people like you to protect people like you. “Free speech” will protect people like you. But I don’t look like you. My skin colour is different. Free speech didn’t stop the bombs being dropped on Tulsa in 1921. It didn’t stop the destruction of black wall street and its literal white-washing from history. So for you to stand in front of me, and to have the gall to make the claim that it is “easy to avoid propaganda” tells me a single thing: that you don’t understand what propaganda actually is. Propaganda is designed to be consumed. Its designed to be propagated, to be appealing, its designed to be palatable. People targeted by propaganda have no incentive to “shut off their accounts.” They are consuming a diet of sweet-sugary-sweets that taste really good. What incentive would they have to stop? You seem to be missing the entire point of this debate. You are gatekeepers. You decide, either through an algorithm or at the whim of the advertiser, what information is seen by certain people and what is gated off from others. You are gatekeepers for what is acceptable political speech on your platform. You are gatekeepers for what people see on your platform. This is the fundamental truth. You said earlier on during the committee that you make very little money from political advertising. That money was not the issue. Yet you’ve just said to me now that you “make our decisions based on what we believe to be in the best financial interests of the company.” I find it hard to reconcile these two positions. If it isn’t about the money, if we believe what you told the hearing earlier today that this is a decision motivated by a desire for “discourse” and not about “the best financial interests in the company”, then I want you to address this. You concede that for the purposes of this hearing that “propaganda is at least as appropriate a term to use as discourse.” So does Facebook welcome propaganda as much as it welcomes discourse? I also would like to have it on the record that I have \*\*not \*\*called for regulation. I have \*\*not \*\*called for a change in laws. Facebook is a business that right now could decide to not take money for political advertising. Change your policies. Stop being a vector for state propaganda. You claim you don’t do it for the money. So how about it Mr Zuckerberg? It won’t hurt the discourse. Your platform is still open for people to express their political opinions to anyone that is willing to listen. The only difference is that people will have to seek out that messaging instead of being micro-targeted using extremely complex algorithms by firms financed by billionaires. The decision to allow lying in political advertising was done with the stroke of a pen. The decision to simply stop taking political advertisements could be done equally as quickly. Mr Zuckerberg: you have agency here. But Mr Zuckerberg, if you don’t want to listen to us, then I implore you to listen to the people that should matter to you the most, your very own employees. Hundreds of them spoke up today in an [open letter](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/technology/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-letter.html) addressed to you. I will quote the pertinent parts: > [@Open letter from Facebook Staff](#): > > We’re reaching out to you, the leaders of this company, because we’re worried we’re on track to undo the great strides our product teams have made in integrity over the last two years. We work here because we care, because we know that even our smallest choices impact communities at an astounding scale. We want to raise our concerns before it’s too late. > > \*\*Free speech and paid speech are not the same thing. > \*\* > Misinformation affects us all. Our current policies on fact checking people in political office, or those running for office, are a threat to what FB stands for. We strongly object to this policy as it stands. It doesn’t protect voices, **but instead allows politicians to weaponize our platform by targeting people who believe that content posted by political figures is trustworthy.** > > … > > Our goal is to bring awareness to our leadership that a large part of the employee body does not agree with this policy. We want to work with our leadership to develop better solutions that both protect our business and the people who use our products. We know this work is nuanced, but there are many things we can do short of eliminating political ads altogether. > > These suggestions are all focused on ad-related content, not organic. > > 1. Hold political ads to the same standard as other ads. > > … > > 1. Stronger visual design treatment for political ads. > > … > > 1. Restrict targeting for political ads. > > … > > 1. Broader observance of the election silence periods > > … > > 1. Spend caps for individual politicians, regardless of source > > … > > 1. Clearer policies for political ads > > … > > \*\*We want to have this conversation in an open dialog because we want to see actual change. > \*\* > We are proud of the work that the integrity teams have done, and we don’t want to see that undermined by policy. Over the coming months, we’ll continue this conversation, and we look forward to working towards solutions together. > > This is still our company. These are your people Mr Zuckerberg. Your people are concerned for the integrity of your platform, they are concerned about the integrity of the next elections. And they certainly seem to have a better grasp on the issues than what you have demonstrated here today. Ignore them at your own peril. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/84 "2019-10-29T16:51:40Z")
> [@Annoyed](#): > > I know damn well what the difference is. Oh? > [@](#): > > Climate change? Sure, it’s real. Been real since the beginning of time, and sure mankind is having an effect on it, **but it is NOT settled science** as to our role… Oh. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/85 "2019-10-30T17:12:17Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > How can voters judge the character of someone when they are fed disinformation about that person through media outlets like Facebook? Zuckerderp only cares about money. Truth? First Amendment? Honesty? He doesn’t give a fuck about any of that. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/86 "2019-10-30T17:17:02Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > Maybe you should debate her. Show us who the moron is. I know where my money’s going. She’d kick his ass and send him crying to his momma. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/87 "2019-10-30T17:19:30Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > Oh. Feelings. You get the feeling they’re full of shit. Yeah, that’s not worth fuck all. Well, carry on. Facts are wasted on your kind anyway. What’s that expression the tighty righties like so much? Oh here it is … FUCK YOUR FEELINGS! I think that captures what I think about their feelz. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/88 "2019-10-30T17:23:53Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > And if Zuckerberg had any guts he would state, when asked directly: **“Hell yeah I’ll publish bullshit, as long as I get paid!”** But that is the TRUTH. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/89 "2019-10-30T21:16:48Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > I also would like to have it on the record that I have \*\*not \*\*called for regulation. I have \*\*not \*\*called for a change in laws. Facebook is a business that right now could decide to not take money for political advertising. Change your policies. Stop being a vector for state propaganda. You claim you don’t do it for the money. > > So how about it Mr Zuckerberg? It won’t hurt the discourse. Your platform is still open for people to express their political opinions to anyone that is willing to listen. The only difference is that people will have to seek out that messaging instead of being micro-targeted using extremely complex algorithms by firms financed by billionaires. > > The decision to allow lying in political advertising was done with the stroke of a pen. The decision to simply stop taking political advertisements could be done equally as quickly. Mr Zuckerberg: you have agency here. …from today: > > [@Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey](#): > > We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought. Why? A few reasons > > … > > A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet. Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people. We believe this decision should not be compromised by money. > > … > > While internet advertising is incredibly powerful and very effective for commercial advertisers, that power brings significant risks to politics, where it can be used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions. > > … > > Internet political ads present entirely new challenges to civic discourse: machine learning-based optimization of messaging and micro-targeting, unchecked misleading information, and deep fakes. All at increasing velocity, sophistication, and overwhelming scale. > > … > > For instance, it‘s not credible for us to say: “We’re working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, buuut if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad…well…they can say whatever they want! 😉” > > … > > A final note. This isn’t about free expression. This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. It’s worth stepping back in order to address. It appears obvious that Jack read my post and has decided to do the right thing. 😉 Its over to you now Mr Zuckerberg. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/90 "2019-10-30T21:32:02Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Zuckerderp only cares about money. Truth? First Amendment? Honesty? > > He doesn’t give a fuck about any of that. My concern is that at some point in the near future he will not just care about money. That he will realizing that he already has more money than he could ever use, and that instead of money he’ll start caring about power. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/91 "2019-10-30T22:02:43Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …from today: > > [https://twitter.com/jack/status/1189634360472829952](https://twitter.com/jack/status/1189634360472829952) > > It appears obvious that Jack read my post and has decided to do the right thing. 😉 Its over to you now Mr Zuckerberg. So, no paid political advertising **from anyone** anywhere on anything? Which I suppose beats trying to satisfy all sides and subfactions about what is or is not to be judged proper. And still does not prevent unpaid misinformation from being spread by both malicious and misguided individuals, publishing organizations, “influencers”, socks, trolls, and gullible in-laws. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2019, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/92 "2019-10-30T22:26:29Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > So, no paid political advertising **from anyone** anywhere on anything? …yep. > [@](#): > > Which I suppose beats trying to satisfy all sides and subfactions about what is or is not to be judged proper. But that really isn’t the point. The point is spelled out clearly in Dorsey’s post. He has hit the nail on the proverbial head. Even if they did “edit for factual content” the [microtargeting of communities vulnerable to propaganda](https://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/m_features/how-facebook-was-harnessed-to-micro-target-voters-and-promote-donald-trump)would still be allowed to happen. > [@](#): > > And still does not prevent unpaid misinformation from being spread by both malicious and misguided individuals, publishing organizations, “influencers”, socks, trolls, and gullible in-laws. Of course not. But there is a substantial difference between organic reach and paid reach. I’ll quote what Dorsey said again: > [@Dorsey](#): > > A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet. **Paying for reach removes that decision** , forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people. We believe this decision should not be compromised by money. A gullible in-law yelling from his Twitter pedestal about the latest Qanon conspiracy theory won’t get heard by more than the people that follow them and that share their posts. Paid reach changes that equation completely. Its a very responsible position for Dorsey and Twitter to take. (And one that I honestly didn’t think he had in him.) He neatly sidesteps any push for regulation or changes to the law. Its an ethical stance that doesn’t explicitly give advantage to either side in the debate. One can only hope that Facebook follows their lead. People still have their “freedom of speech” on that platform. They just have to compete to be heard just like everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2019, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/93 "2019-10-31T13:56:27Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > What the hell was with AOC, trying to come off like Ed Concannon, as played by James Mason in _[The Verdict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Verdict)_ with [Mark Zuckerberg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voDB5w5YVMU) yesterday? This is one of the least intelligible grammatically correct sentences I’ve ever seen. I think that warrants some kind of prize. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2019, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/94 "2019-10-31T14:52:23Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > What the hell was with AOC,[1] trying to come off like Ed Concannon,[2] as played by James Mason in The Verdict,[3] with Mark Zuckerberg yesterday? > > This is one of the least intelligible grammatically correct sentences I’ve ever seen. I think that warrants some kind of prize. Comma #2 was good — omit it and both the others need to go too. Comma #1 was optional. It was comma #3 — the missing one — _that was mandatory_. Unless Zuckerberg was Mason’s co-star in a brand-new (“yesterday”) movie. In that case, the sentence makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/95 "2019-11-01T05:45:04Z")
I don’t recall the source but I saw mention that FB’s political-ad revenue is only a tiny percentage of their take, raising the question: If it ain’t for the money, why is Zuck so adamant here? Because he LIKES propaganda, right? ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/96 "2019-11-01T10:30:26Z")
Maybe it’s the same thing as Trump cashng a check for a few cents. Cents is cents. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/97 "2019-11-02T12:28:53Z")
She used logic on him. Always a winning play. Zuck, as we all know, just wanted to write some code that’d make it easier for him and his testosterone-drenched buddies to [rate girls in the dorms and facilitate hook-ups](https://www.techwalla.com/articles/why-did-mark-zuckerberg-invent-facebook). And now look at him. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/98 "2019-11-02T14:26:13Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > This is one of the least intelligible grammatically correct sentences I’ve ever seen. I think that warrants some kind of prize. He seems to have a lot of trouble with English for some reason. ---
**Author:** ![mjmlabs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mjmlabs/32/69_2.png) [@mjmlabs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mjmlabs)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/99 "2019-11-02T15:16:43Z")
> [@RioRico](#): > > I don’t recall the source but I saw mention that FB’s political-ad revenue is only a tiny percentage of their take … I believe Zuck claims it’s 0.5%, or 1/200th, of revenue. But 1/200th of billions is still a shit-ton of cash. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2019, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289/100 "2019-11-02T16:00:46Z")
> [@mjmlabs](#): > > I believe Zuck claims it’s 0.5%, or 1/200th, of revenue. > > But 1/200th of billions is still a shit-ton of cash. But surely Zuckerberg’s position is not based on financial considerations, at least in this instance. In [this recent thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=884619) I learned that there is no real financial or civil risk to Zuckerberg from banning political ads. The 0.5% of its revenue that FB gets from political ads only confirms it. So although I think he is misguided, his fealty to ‘free speech’ is what’s really driving him. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aoc-as-james-mason-in-the-verdict-not-a-good-look/842289.md?page=6)