And a fight between these two may end up very comedic. Neither one are free from dumb comments or actions.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mark Zuckerberg Rebuts Tim Cook: Companies That Charge You More Don't Necessarily Care About You More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And a fight between these two may end up very comedic. Neither one are free from dumb comments or actions.
Before we get back to it, @Night Spring
I completely disagree with your assessment, could not disagree more. It churns my stomach that people hold such varying views on something that is, for once, black and white, to me at least.
looking at that crap is wildly inappropriate, and encouraging the possibility of them doing something through their actions, whether you currently inflict harm on them or not. at minimum, you're contributing to an industry that is sick to its core and void of morals and NOT at all legal , exploiting children.
Im sorry but I don't want to debate this one much more beyond that and would be glad to get back on track
...BUT how we got here tho since you asked-
I brought up that no one seemed to refute my post about Podesta, and it seems you can't either which is why we are now in a strong desire to get back on topic.
None of those emails have anything to do with ordering food on the campaign, quit being silly, and legitimately making things up to cover for this freak. Where in the emails does the language state anything related to the campaign? It has got to get exhausting to literally on the fly make things up to believe yourself that the situation isn't unraveling like you thought it would. its not an ego stroke entirely, its to wake people up.
MR doesn't censor dissenting opinions alone, especially in threads flagged political where discourse is expected. unfortunately, many places do. particularly, the unpopular views that aren't held by the mainstream-media consuming public.
I applaud them for that and using it to express my views, where I cant elsewhere.
Wikileaks isn't so deceiving that they would want to lead you to believe he's into stuff he isn't. That would tarnish their long-term, untouched reputation of not modifying documents or misleading the public, for short term gain. The emails speak for themselves, and the media by in large not caring about the emails and subverting attention to a fictitious basement of a pizza parlor debunking legitimate suspicion and concern those who are aware of these emails, is their intention entirely and speaks for itself too.
you brought up Snopes stating that Obama didn't mine data from Facebook, because you pulled it up on Snopes in half a second and refused to look beyond that.. when the Obama campaign director admitted Facebook gave them info because they were on their side.
You then said prove Snopes is dishonest, and I brought up another article involving them to prostitution, and then I got into it again about how nothing is what it seems, relatively speaking, including the podesta-gate, and if you're looking for concrete evidence from the usual suspects like CNN and others that, if they do cover it at all they bury it in an article on their site and spend no time emphasizing it, otherwise you will have to look elsewhere, from publications less revered of the top fake news kings. That's all.
I completely disagree with your assessment, could not disagree more. It churns my stomach that people hold such varying views on something that is, for once, black and white, to me at least.
looking at that crap is wildly inappropriate, and encouraging the possibility of them doing something through their actions, whether you currently inflict harm on them or not. at minimum, you're contributing to an industry that is sick to its core and void of morals and NOT at all legal , exploiting children.
Im sorry but I don't want to debate this one much more beyond that and would be glad to get back on track
...BUT how we got here tho since you asked-
I brought up that no one seemed to refute my post about Podesta, and it seems you can't either which is why we are now in a strong desire to get back on topic.
None of those emails have anything to do with ordering food on the campaign, quit being silly, and legitimately making things up to cover for this freak. Where in the emails does the language state anything related to the campaign? It has got to get exhausting to literally on the fly make things up to believe yourself that the situation isn't unraveling like you thought it would. its not an ego stroke entirely, its to wake people up.
MR doesn't censor dissenting opinions alone, especially in threads flagged political where discourse is expected. unfortunately, many places do. particularly, the unpopular views that aren't held by the mainstream-media consuming public.
I applaud them for that and using it to express my views, where I cant elsewhere.
Wikileaks isn't so deceiving that they would want to lead you to believe he's into stuff he isn't. That would tarnish their long-term, untouched reputation of not modifying documents or misleading the public, for short term gain. The emails speak for themselves, and the media by in large not caring about the emails and subverting attention to a fictitious basement of a pizza parlor debunking legitimate suspicion and concern those who are aware of these emails, is their intention entirely and speaks for itself too.
you brought up Snopes stating that Obama didn't mine data from Facebook, because you pulled it up on Snopes in half a second and refused to look beyond that.. when the Obama campaign director admitted Facebook gave them info because they were on their side.
You then said prove Snopes is dishonest, and I brought up another article involving them to prostitution, and then I got into it again about how nothing is what it seems, relatively speaking, including the podesta-gate, and if you're looking for concrete evidence from the usual suspects like CNN and others that, if they do cover it at all they bury it in an article on their site and spend no time emphasizing it, otherwise you will have to look elsewhere, from publications less revered of the top fake news kings. That's all.
Last edited:
Actually, I didn't. That was someone else.
Also, I can't quite remember why you brought up Podesta, when the thread is about Cook and Zuckerberg. [EDIT: Ah, I see. You brought it up as an example of how Snopes can be wrong / ignore "facts."]
And the only reason I or anyone else can't "refute" you is that you refuse to accept any evidence or argument that don't jive with your views. I, on the other hand, don't find any of the evidence you present as purporting to show that Podesta is involved in pedophilia convincing. It's clear neither of us is going to change the other's opinion. That's probably why no one responded when you first posted those emails, because they knew going down that path was a useless dead end. I knew that, too, but I had some extra time today, so I thought why not, this could be interesting.
Last edited:
How about smartphone manufacturers restricting Facebook from installing Facebook app into smartphones bundled into the system that has access to all contacts,messages,photos,locations and call logs in your smartphone? Samsung,HTC, Sony and LG are manufacturers that do this due to a small bribery from Facebook. Luckily China does not allow this so if you buy a smartphone from China you do not have to worry about this.
https://www.gsmarena.com/facebook_a...irdparty_access_from_user_data-news-30423.php
https://www.gsmarena.com/facebook_a...irdparty_access_from_user_data-news-30423.php
The two that care the least about your privacy
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...l-the-data-facebook-google-has-on-you-privacy
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...l-the-data-facebook-google-has-on-you-privacy
I like this... a totally different business model mind set "head-to-head"
Tim: a limited successful CEO type person, who makes more from premium products.
Mark: a self-proclaimed one who wants to harvest & give the power to user-based protection switches, so Mark will get more to sell to advertisers.
Guess who will win here. And its not Apple..
If i were Mark, i wouldn't be claiming to be better,,, Facebook is leading in making money from people who post in terms of advertising..
I'd say much more then Apple. Apple may be the biggest company, but everything times by 1 million or so that posts to Facebook, and they do it everyday.
Tim: a limited successful CEO type person, who makes more from premium products.
Mark: a self-proclaimed one who wants to harvest & give the power to user-based protection switches, so Mark will get more to sell to advertisers.
Guess who will win here. And its not Apple..
If i were Mark, i wouldn't be claiming to be better,,, Facebook is leading in making money from people who post in terms of advertising..
I'd say much more then Apple. Apple may be the biggest company, but everything times by 1 million or so that posts to Facebook, and they do it everyday.
They should each mind their respective businesses, which are not particularly comparable. And they should both be up for protecting consumers' privacy because that's what consumers want now, having discovered what wanton misuse of customer data means even before "hackers" get hold of it. On that score I'd say Apple is one up if they must continue what starts to look like the cat-fight Zuckerberg wants to have.
We can show Zuckerberg that Tim is right by supporting this 24 hour boycott
https://www.phonearena.com/news/One-day-boycott-of-Facebook-set-for-April-11th_id103894
https://www.phonearena.com/news/One-day-boycott-of-Facebook-set-for-April-11th_id103894
Huawei does it the right way by allowing end users the right to choose what to install and gives them the right to uninstall it also
Last edited:
Tim Cook should stand firmly on this. Zuckerberg is just not happy that iPhones don’t come with F*ckbook built into their OS with no uninstall option like they do on Android phones so they can spy on you and steal info from you
https://www.inquisitr.com/5163961/mark-zuckerberg-to-tim-cook-iphones-are-not-welcome-at-facebook/
https://www.inquisitr.com/5163961/mark-zuckerberg-to-tim-cook-iphones-are-not-welcome-at-facebook/
No need to get angry. I’m sure they are stealing info in a way that’s in your best interest. Provided you’re primarily interested in making money no matter what the personal cost to you may be for Zuckerberg but hey, who isn’t?
As many great things the internet has brought, I am very fortunate to remember being around when you taped shows you didn't want to miss or risk never getting to see them, seeing movies you wanted or being forced to wait six-nine months until you could rent or buy them (on VHS), people clapping at the end of movies in the theatre, not needing cable because you only had 40 channels where you watched primetime shows, most of which went off-air or showed household infomercials late at night, and people engaged each other instead of having their face buried in a hand-sized screen.
I'm a junkie just like most people, but I can at least remember a time when these luxuries were the exception, not the norm.
Social media is coming full-circle for me. It was Myspace for me, even though IM, chat rooms, etc. were around long before that. Then FB, etc. Hell, it was only 13-14 years ago Youtube wasn't around. These have been great tools when used at face value, but the technical side of them many don't think, know or care about - or disregard to their own detriment - are starting to surface. I'm starting to yearn for the old days when there was more of a balance. Things are moving so fast, and too much of anything isn't a good thing.
Reminds me of when Brooks got out of prison in The Shawshank Redemption... "the world got itself in a big damn hurry". Except instead of 40 or 50 years, its every 3, 5 or 10.
I'm a junkie just like most people, but I can at least remember a time when these luxuries were the exception, not the norm.
Social media is coming full-circle for me. It was Myspace for me, even though IM, chat rooms, etc. were around long before that. Then FB, etc. Hell, it was only 13-14 years ago Youtube wasn't around. These have been great tools when used at face value, but the technical side of them many don't think, know or care about - or disregard to their own detriment - are starting to surface. I'm starting to yearn for the old days when there was more of a balance. Things are moving so fast, and too much of anything isn't a good thing.
Reminds me of when Brooks got out of prison in The Shawshank Redemption... "the world got itself in a big damn hurry". Except instead of 40 or 50 years, its every 3, 5 or 10.