fake speech free speech, black on Facebook and keeping the other side in focus: the house financial services hearing.

So.  Mark Zuckerberg appeared before a house committee again, and this time, both sides of the spectrum in the media got something that could appreciate for later show material and article writings.

Among the takeaways, the "clinically-insane" Maxine Waters plopped out an unfounded allegation that Facebook disenfranchises blacks.  Its the first time this commentator has heard that charge.  Waters asked Zuckerberg to provide racial data of its users, data which Zuckerberg claimed is not compiled by the website.  Meanwhile, elsewhere across the internet racial data is given by users on a voluntary basis, with the end result or the usage of that data being kept shadowy, not-defined or specified to the user.

Alexandria Occasio-Cortez was more concerned with "fake speech" than "free speech", grilling Zuckerberg over how much Facebook polices its ads.  Zuckerberg referred to an automated process of vetting advertisements, with the process being largely automated because of the massive volume of incoming Facebook ads.  Cortez tried for her soundbites, referring to website "the daily caller" as having ties to white supremacists, and then fact-checking for Facebook, while Zuckerberg countered that the fact-checkers were chosen by an independent organization.

Unphased by facts, AOC asked something about white supremacists being okay, seeming to have missed the answer to her previous question, as if she were reading from a prepared script.  Meanwhile, the left-leaning press praised AOC for her quixotic assaulting of the technology mogul.

What they seemed to want was for Facebook to police their political opposition's advertisements, rather than protecting Free Speech.  The fact is, the process is largely automated because of the sales volume, with humans rarely, if at all, vetting the material to be placed in user feeds.  The larger concern then, is not bias of a human vetting professional, but rather "false positives" which would disqualify legitimate factual postings.

Any "false positive" is an infringement of Free Speech, says this commentator; or in other words, any legitimate posting barred by Facebook's automated system would be considered disenfranchised, as if having rights violated.  But what the concern seemed to be in the hearing was largely political content, particularly referencing postings by the political enemies of the interrogators.

What seemed to be wanted by the questioners was the policing of free speech by Facebook on its platform, to put in place more controls in order the face of the recent Internet Research Agency efforts to spread disinformation.

People that laugh at AOC had their material, afterwards, while the leftist press lauded AOC's passion during the questioning. 

Meanwhile, only political concerns were addressed, in other words, some entity helping the questioner's political enemies during the coming Presidential campaign season.