Follow @TurtleboyNews on Twitter by clicking here. 

Follow Turtleboy on Instagram by clicking here. 

Follow and like the Turtleboy Sports Forever, the newest Turtleboy Sports page and Clarence Woods Emerson to keep up with the hilarious turtle rider commentary.

Want to advertise with Turtleboy? Email us at Turtleboysports@gmail.com for more information.

If you like free speech and want to support what we’re doing, feel free to donate to the Turtle fund:

So I watched the entire Senate grilling of Mark Zuckerberg today and for the most part it was the disappointment I knew it would be. Almost every Senator that spoke had no clue what they’re talking about. Most of them just rambled on asking questions about Facebook selling our data to advertisers. Because God forbid Facebook show me ads for shit that I actually am interested in seeing. The whole thing was basically a tutorial on how Facebook makes money. One Senator legitimately had no idea and Zuckerberg just said, “Ummm…by advertising.” The whole thing was embarrassing.

Our Senator, Ed Markey, complained about children’s data being sold and rambled on about that for five minutes. Senator Hirono from Hawaii’s biggest concern was…..

“We would not proactively do that,” Zuckerberg said in response to Sen. Hirono’s question asking if Facebook would cooperate with ICE to determine if users who are immigrants may go on to commit crimes. https://t.co/iZOlrpdeXj pic.twitter.com/wdl0ADFgg6

— POLITICO (@politico) April 10, 2018

I swear to God – Facebook conspiring with ICE to arrest undocumented immigrants. How out of touch do you have to be to think that this is the biggest problem with Facebook right now? You have all week to prep your five minutes and this is what you come up with?

Oy-vay.

Look, we try to be a politically neutral blog, but the fact of the matter is that the only people who asked real questions today were all Republicans. Some of them were too old to know what the fuck is going on, like John Kennedy from Louisiana who was completely lost and rambled on about data.

But there were 3 stars of the show who absolutely lit Mark Zuckerberg on fire – Ben Sasse, Lindsay Graham, and Ted Cruz.

Let’s start with Sasse. He’s a young conservative Nebraskan who has been one of Trump’s most outspoken critics. I’m a big fan personally. I’d vote for him for President but people like him don’t get nominated. He took issue with Zuckerberg’s repeated use of the term “hate speech.” Because hate speech is just a dog whistle for SJWs to censor speech that they hate. It’s not real. The Supreme Court says it’s not real. It’s completely subjective and thus has no real definition. If I say that people with penises are dudes, that could be considered hate speech. If I say that microagressions aren’t a thing, that could be hate speech. If I say that Didi Delgado is a race baiting con artist who scams white women into paying for her vacations, that could be a hate crime. And Sasse got sassy with Zuckerberg about it:

Facebook is a really big and powerful platform. Their decisions on how to police speech will have far-reaching consequences. That’s why I asked Mark Zuckerberg in today's hearing to define “hate speech.”

It is a hard question and an important conversation. pic.twitter.com/YbIXbeReq6

— Senator Ben Sasse (@SenSasse) April 11, 2018

His voice makes me want to scratch my eyes out.

“Can you define hate speech?”

“This is a really hard question. And it’s one of the reasons why we struggle with. There are certain definitions that we have around calling for violence or….”

He has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about. He doesn’t know what hate speech is. No one is saying that calls for violence should be allowed. No one is bitching that their pages are being taken down because they’re threatening to chop off heads. They’re mad because of this:

If hate speech is hard to define, then hate speech shouldn’t be the basis for taking down posts on Facebook.

And Sasse tells him as much. We all agree violence is bad. But giving people the ability to censor speech simply because it makes them uncomfortable is dangerous. He brings up abortion, which is a very divisive topic. If you say something like, “abortion is murder” on Facebook, is that hate speech? Because it could be triggering to a woman who had an abortion. Zuckerberg’s answer showed just how clueless he is….

“As we’re able to technologically shift to AI, proactively look at content, I think that’s gonna create massive questions to society about what type of obligations we expect company’s to fulfill.”

Oh good, right now it’s “human beings” who are taking down content, but in the future it will be “AI.” Because what could go wrong with computers arbitrarily deciding what comes up and what stays down? Do you know how many senators know what AI is? Ted Cruz and Ben Sasse. That’s about it. The rest of them heard him say that and thought, “Yea, I have no fucking clue what that means. Better ask another question about data.”

Sasse ended it with a great line:

“Adults need to engage in vigorous debates.”

Exactly. We should all get used to hearing things that make us uncomfortable and debating with people we disagree with. That used to happen before the left basically invented the term “hate speech” to silence their detractors.

Next up was Lindsay Graham. He brought up another very important aspect of this – the monopoly factor. Facebook is a monopoly. They control the public square. They own Instagram. Twitter has a fraction of their following. If you use Facebook for social media and don’t like it, there’s no comparable social media site you can use. They’re also taking over other industries with Facebook Live, Facebook Marketplace, and Facebook Jobs. This apparently was news to Zuckerberg when Graham asked him point blank – who are your competitors:

Mark Zuckerberg agreed to discuss government regulation of Facebook after Sen. Lindsey Graham’s questioning pic.twitter.com/rNq8YijLsh

— NowThis (@nowthisnews) April 10, 2018

“We have a lot of competitors.”

“Who’s your biggest.”

“Hmmmm…I think…the categories…did you want just one? Can I give a bunch? There are 3 categories I’d focus on. One are the other tech platforms – Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, we overlap with them in many different ways.”

HAHAHAHA!! Google is a search engine that ranks Facebook on page one of almost every search, it’s not a social network itself. Apple sells electronic devices, many of which you can use to access Facebook. Amazon is a virtual warehouse where we can buy things which will connect us to Facebook. Microsoft is a software company that helps us make spreadsheets and word documents. In no way, shape or form are these competitors.

Does he actually believe this, or is he just a devious liar? He went to Harvard for 20 minutes so he can’t be that dumb. These companies might collaborate on some things, but at the end of the day we use all of them. We don’t have to pick and choose one over the other, which is what you do when there’s competition.

“Do they provide the same services you provide.”

“In some ways, yes.”

No. No they don’t. At least they didn’t used to. But recently Facebook has been implementing things that make places like Amazon and Google obsolete. When I want to search for a topic now, I go to Facebook because it gives me more relevant and better looking results than Google. When people want to get in contact with us they don’t send us emails – they send us Facebook messages. I still use Amazon, but Google Marketplace is catching up. These companies are not a threat to Facebook, but Facebook is most definitely a threat to them.

“If I buy a Ford and it doesn’t work well I can buy a Chevy. What’s the equivalent if I don’t like Facebook?”

“Ummm well, the second category……”

“Im not asking about categories. Is there an alternative to Facebook.”

“Yes Senator. The average American uses 8 different apps to communicate with their friends, from texting apps to email.”

“Is Twitter the same as what you do?”

“It overlaps with what we do.”

“Is Facebook a monopoly?”

“It certainly doesn’t feel that way to me.”

“So, Instagram, why did you buy IG?”

“Because they’re talented app developers who were using good use of our platform and have good values…”

Does he really not think he runs a monopoly, or is he just fucking with the Senate? Because Facebook is the most obvious monopoly of all time.

Finally there was Ted Cruz, who just burned him to the ground and pissed on his ashes….

Zuckerberg was so overmatched. This is what Ted Cruz does better than anyone. He might have the most punchable face ever, and his Dad might’ve killed JFK, and he might be the illuminati, but he’s smarter and more savvy than everyone else. He gets it.

“Do you consider yourself a neutral public forum?”

That’s what it comes down to. Does Facebook have a political bias? Because they can, it’s their right. They just can’t claim to be a neutral medium if they’re only taking down and censoring one side of the aisle.

“Are you aware of any ad or pages that have been removed from Planned Parenthood, Moveon.org, or any democratic candidates for office.”

For a while I stuck to my believe that censorship was not politically motivated. That it was completely random. Because for us it was. This wasn’t taken down because it was too right wing:

But have you ever heard a left wing person complain that their page was taken down by Facebook? Because I haven’t. It’s always right wingers. Always.

Zuckerberg also stuck to the lie that human beings are the ones reviewing content right now, which is a blatant lie, and one that we caught Facebook in on tape:

At the 5:30 mark – “It’s an automated review, so it’s not a human being that looks at it.”

Liar. He stood up in front of congress and lied to them. Seriously, send this to every congressman you know. Zuckerberg just lied to their faces.

But let’s suppose human beings did review these things, would that even make it better?

“Do you feel it’s your responsibility to assess users whether they are good and positive connections or ones that those 15,000 people deem is unacceptable or deplorable?”

Bingo. Facebook is too important and vital for communication to allow unnamed people make decisions about what is and isn’t acceptable, and what is and isn’t “good and positive” connections.

So what will come of this today? Well, according to Ben Shapiro, Zuck fucked himself a little:

Congratulations, Zuckerberg. You’re now a publisher and not a platform, and subject to legal liability that attaches. Good luck. https://t.co/QVre5Z2WrJ

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) April 10, 2018

WATCH: Zuckerberg Admits, 'We're Responsible For The Content.' He May Have Just Bankrupted His Own Company. https://t.co/whzIkbZphN pic.twitter.com/wQWQEDDPUO

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) April 10, 2018

By admitting that Facebook will be the ones who decide what is and isn’t seen and published on their site, Facebook becomes a publisher. If UPS decided what they’d deliver based on the speech inside their packages, they’d no longer be a distributor:

Zuckerberg may have just opened himself up to a world of legal hurt. Platforms are generally not held legally responsible for the content posted on those platforms — so liability issues ranging from copyright violation to slander aren’t serious concerns for platforms. You can’t sue AT&T if somebody slanders you on a telephone call carried by their satellites. But that’s not the case with publishers. Publishers are responsible for the content that is added to their platforms. The Daily Wire bears legal liability for the content that goes up at The Daily Wire.

So by admitting that Facebook is a publisher they are now legally responsible for anything on their site. The next time someone kills themselves on Facebook Live, that’s on Facebook. They allowed that to be published.

The bottom line is that Zuckerberg proved today that he’s nothing more than a child who is in way over his head. He should’ve just left his platform the way it was, but instead he wanted to change the world and now he’s finally being called out on his bullshit because Ted Cruz lit him on fire.