15 ms·

'summoned' ◔_◔ For a moment, I feared we were treading the same path beaten by the US Congress with parliamentary extra-territorial over-reach, but it turns ou

'summoned' ◔_◔ For a moment, I feared we were treading the same path beaten by the US Congress with parliamentary extra-territorial over-reach, but it turns out it's just the BBC using the wrong words; the chairman of the select committee has merely requested that he give evidence before the committee: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/culture-media-and-sport/180320%20Chair%20to%20Mark%20Zuckerberg%20re%20oral%20evidence.pdf https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/cultu...

labster 9y ago
I think it's a fair trade if you want to continue to run a business in a country, that country has a right to summon you to explain what your business is doing.
- s4vi0r 9y ago
  Definitely. Especially after the whole Facebook getting to CAs office(s) before authorities thing.
- hannibalhorn 9y ago
  The right to summon the local corporate representative, legal team, etc.? Sure. Does every country have the "right" to summon a multinational CEO? That'd get crazy really quick, and I doubt it'd benefit anybody (beyond politicians.) I had the same reaction as the parent comment - to "request" his presence is perfectly fine, but a "summons" would be a bit much...
  - jeswin 9y ago
    If you've compromised the details of millions of citizens, then summoning the CEO doesn't seem inappropriate.
  - tanilama 9y ago
    CEO, in this case, a celebrity, can walk away, free of consequences, in face of a political disaster? This attitude is pretty problematic
  - xg15 9y ago
    Not as of now. Though until very recently, you also needed to have at least some personnel physically present in a location if you wanted to conduct business there. As that changed, thanks to the internet, those rules might need to change as well.
  - sleepychu 9y ago
    The letter just asks for someone important enough to be able to give us the answers we need, preferably Zuck. I think summon is hyperbolic.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    It is a request. There's no sanction associated with not turning up, but that means Facebook doesn't get a say in what the legislative response to this is. For example, maybe a ban on political advertising on Facebook.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    What is so problematic about being able to summon the CEO of a business that operates in your country? You say it would get crazy but I don’t see how.
IncRnd 9y ago
A request for appearance is a summons. BBC didn't necessarily use the word as a legal term.
- MistahKoala 9y ago
  A summons is an order, which is not what the committee has issued to Zuckerberg. The BBC's usage of the word is still incorrect. The procedure for soliciting evidence before a select committee is first to extend an invitation - as has been done - and only after that would a summons be expected to be issued, if at all.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > A summons is an order, which is not what the committee has issued to Zuckerberg. The BBC's usage of the word is still incorrect. The BBC does not use the noun “summons” at all, it uses, in the headline, the verb participle “summoned”, which typically does not mean “issued a summons”.
    - MistahKoala 9y ago
      My bad. To clarify, something that is 'summoned' is ordered. Nothing has been ordered by the committee in respect of his anticipated evidence.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > To clarify, something that is 'summoned' is ordered. That is an overly narrow definition; “summoned” is broader than “ordered”. Google's excellent, OED-based search-integrated dictionary has, as the first definition of “summon”, “authoritatively or urgently call on (someone) to be present, especially as a defendant or witness in a law court”; you seem to want to limit the term to cases where the call is made authoritatively but not those where it is merely made urgently.
- DanBC 9y ago
  But in a process where Zuckerberg could be summonsed by the House it seems unfortunate to use the simmilar but different summons word.

labster 9y ago

I think it's a fair trade if you want to continue to run a business in a country, that country has a right to summon you to explain what your business is doing.

s4vi0r 9y ago
Definitely. Especially after the whole Facebook getting to CAs office(s) before authorities thing.
hannibalhorn 9y ago
The right to summon the local corporate representative, legal team, etc.? Sure. Does every country have the "right" to summon a multinational CEO? That'd get crazy really quick, and I doubt it'd benefit anybody (beyond politicians.) I had the same reaction as the parent comment - to "request" his presence is perfectly fine, but a "summons" would be a bit much...
- jeswin 9y ago
  If you've compromised the details of millions of citizens, then summoning the CEO doesn't seem inappropriate.
- tanilama 9y ago
  CEO, in this case, a celebrity, can walk away, free of consequences, in face of a political disaster? This attitude is pretty problematic
- xg15 9y ago
  Not as of now. Though until very recently, you also needed to have at least some personnel physically present in a location if you wanted to conduct business there. As that changed, thanks to the internet, those rules might need to change as well.
- sleepychu 9y ago
  The letter just asks for someone important enough to be able to give us the answers we need, preferably Zuck. I think summon is hyperbolic.
- pjc50 9y ago
  It is a request. There's no sanction associated with not turning up, but that means Facebook doesn't get a say in what the legislative response to this is. For example, maybe a ban on political advertising on Facebook.
- mikeash 9y ago
  What is so problematic about being able to summon the CEO of a business that operates in your country? You say it would get crazy but I don’t see how.

IncRnd 9y ago

A request for appearance is a summons. BBC didn't necessarily use the word as a legal term.

MistahKoala 9y ago
A summons is an order, which is not what the committee has issued to Zuckerberg. The BBC's usage of the word is still incorrect. The procedure for soliciting evidence before a select committee is first to extend an invitation - as has been done - and only after that would a summons be expected to be issued, if at all.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > A summons is an order, which is not what the committee has issued to Zuckerberg. The BBC's usage of the word is still incorrect. The BBC does not use the noun “summons” at all, it uses, in the headline, the verb participle “summoned”, which typically does not mean “issued a summons”.
  - MistahKoala 9y ago
    My bad. To clarify, something that is 'summoned' is ordered. Nothing has been ordered by the committee in respect of his anticipated evidence.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > To clarify, something that is 'summoned' is ordered. That is an overly narrow definition; “summoned” is broader than “ordered”. Google's excellent, OED-based search-integrated dictionary has, as the first definition of “summon”, “authoritatively or urgently call on (someone) to be present, especially as a defendant or witness in a law court”; you seem to want to limit the term to cases where the call is made authoritatively but not those where it is merely made urgently.
DanBC 9y ago
But in a process where Zuckerberg could be summonsed by the House it seems unfortunate to use the simmilar but different summons word.