8 ms·

This was obviously never going to happen and is absolutely the right decision for Zuckerberg and Facebook. House of Commons select committees bagging a big scal

by hanoz 9y ago

This was obviously never going to happen and is absolutely the right decision for Zuckerberg and Facebook. House of Commons select committees bagging a big scalp invariably turn into show trials, with MPs possessing a completely deluded sense of their own insight into a subject queuing up to play to the cameras. The spectacle of having Zuckerberg there would have been absolutely excruciating. So, much as I'd like to see Facebook deleted from the internet, at least we'll be spared the embarrassment of the world witnessing the caliber of our elected representatives.

whatok 9y ago
So really not that much different than US Congress where he's still potentially going to appear?
- paulddraper 9y ago
  > still potentially going to appear ...and if I were a betting man, "not going to appear." Zuckerburg's strength is not PR or public conversations. It makes zero sense to me why he would represent Facebook to US Congress.
bitxbit 9y ago
I actually think this is absolutely the wrong move for him if he already came clean. In my estimate, he is being legally advised not to show up to these hearings for reasons unclear to us at the moment. Perhaps there's more to the story than what has been revealed thus far.
- CaveTech 9y ago
  There is no conspiracy here. Being publicly scrutanized is not good for business, there is no win for Facebook to be had in this format.
  - bitxbit 9y ago
    Perhaps not but there is a big difference between going on TV and taking out an apology ad vs. appearing in sworn-in hearings. Recall this is a part of an ongoing issue that they have been carefully trying to manage for the past few years. Unfortunately for Facebook, they are very much in the public space by design. If they cannot withstand this level of public scrutiny, then they are effectively conceding that they "don't deserve" to serve the public.
  - ikeyany 9y ago
    There's a possible win—people would have assumed he was sincere in his apology. Sure it would be bad for business, but perhaps some things are more important than business.
  - WalterSear 9y ago
    There's no conspiracy: huge political ad campaigns were purchased in rubles sent from Russian bank accounts. Moreover: * Monthly meetings with Yuri Milner after he invests $200 million dollars of Gazprom money in facebook after the 2008 crash. * Facebook assigning liaisons to work at the Trump campaign offices - side by side, if not directly with, Cambridge Analytica. Kushner implies it's directly with them. “We found that Facebook and digital targeting were the most effective ways to reach the audiences. After the primary, we started ramping up because we knew that doing a national campaign is different than doing a primary campaign. That was when we formalized the system because we had to ramp up for digital fundraising. We brought in Cambridge Analytica. I called some of my friends from Silicon Valley who were some of the best digital marketers in the world. And I asked them how to scale this stuff." http://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-40852227/the-digital-guru-who-helped-donald-trump-to-the-presidency http://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-40852227/the-digital-gur...
YesNoYesNoNo101 9y ago
Slapping those in the face who make the laws your company needs to abide to is never a good idea.
headmelted 9y ago
Everything you've said is utterly accurate and yet I still think this is a terrible decision. We'll have to witness some hapless middle-manager undergo the same circus, but with every new person to speak we'll have a customary "I simply cannot believe Mr. Zuckerberg did not think it was important for him to be here in person!". Having a fall guy give terrible answers looks worse than him giving terrible answers. At the very least send Sheryl Sandberg - the message they're sending out right now is that they aren't taking it seriously.
- andyjohnson0 9y ago
  > We'll have to witness some hapless middle-manager undergo the same circus According to The Guardian, Facebook said that "the company would be putting forward its chief technology officer, Mike Schroepfer, or its chief product officer, Chris Cox." https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/27/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-declines-to-appear-before-uk-fake-news-inquiry-mps https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/27/facebook-...
  - aylmao 9y ago
    It's no secret that Zukerberg is not very charismatic; IMO he looks kinda rehearsed and scared when he speaks in public. Cox and Schroepfer both seem more comfortable in front of cameras from what I can find online, and to be honest would probably have better insight into what happened. After all, it's their jobs as the heads of product, and technology.
    - liberte82 9y ago
      I think he's autistic personally, or getting close to it on the spectrum. He embodies a lot of the traits. His personality in public reminds me a lot of Connor McDavid, who I also suspect.
  - headmelted 9y ago
    Which is fair enough, but the point is it's not Mark or Sheryl. They want a celebrity they can shake their fists at and give a right telling off to. Politicians don't build their careers giving tongue-lashings to non-public figures, and that's going to be a problem now. As I type this, I've just read that Zuckerberg has agreed to testify before a congressional committee - this is going to piss off MPs in the UK all the more though because he snubbed them first (which in turns means whoever gets sent is going to get a lot more abuse and more of the "Where is he!?" feigned outrage). I'm frankly surprised that Sheryl Sandberg isn't being sent to the UK if Zuckerberg is testifying in the US (although I don't see why he can't do both). The whole angle at the time of her hiring was that she would be "the grown up in the room". I realize that was a long time ago now, but if ever there was a time for the COO to step up this has to be it.
grecy 9y ago
Would you feel the same way if the CEO of some massive Russian or Chinese firm holding the private data on millions and millions of American citizens refused to appear before the American Congress?
- gambiting 9y ago
  I mean....I would still recognize it as the correct business decision, even though I would personally dislike it. Those two are not mutually exclusive.
  - ModernMech 9y ago
    Interesting how the "correct" business decision often deviates from what we feel is morally responsible.
    - paulddraper 9y ago
      No one said "morally responsible", just "I would personally dislike it". I also dislike that I'll have to wait at red lights this morning; that doesn't make red lights morally deviant.
nealdt 9y ago
I am sure certain members of the Gov won't forget the lack of his appearance (and the impression it gives) so who knows if it was a good business decision or not, down the line.
JustAnotherPat 9y ago
As an American, I have to say Parliament debates are relatively entertaining and seem light years more intelligent than what comes out of Congress.
desertedisland 9y ago
This was not a trial, this was an enquiry. It was a massive opportunity - a worldwide stage - for Zuckerberg to get ahead of the questions about Facebook, reassure shareholders and users, and publicly defend his company. Now he and the company just look weaselly, defensive and contemptuous. Public opinion of Facebook is in freefall. That is a huge problem that is very difficult to turn around with big real world consequences: loss of advertising already and there will now be pressure on politicians in Europe and the US to regulate and fine. Seriously he really messed up on this.

by hanoz 9y ago

whatok 9y ago

So really not that much different than US Congress where he's still potentially going to appear?

paulddraper 9y ago
> still potentially going to appear ...and if I were a betting man, "not going to appear." Zuckerburg's strength is not PR or public conversations. It makes zero sense to me why he would represent Facebook to US Congress.

bitxbit 9y ago

I actually think this is absolutely the wrong move for him if he already came clean. In my estimate, he is being legally advised not to show up to these hearings for reasons unclear to us at the moment. Perhaps there's more to the story than what has been revealed thus far.

CaveTech 9y ago
There is no conspiracy here. Being publicly scrutanized is not good for business, there is no win for Facebook to be had in this format.
- bitxbit 9y ago
  Perhaps not but there is a big difference between going on TV and taking out an apology ad vs. appearing in sworn-in hearings. Recall this is a part of an ongoing issue that they have been carefully trying to manage for the past few years. Unfortunately for Facebook, they are very much in the public space by design. If they cannot withstand this level of public scrutiny, then they are effectively conceding that they "don't deserve" to serve the public.
- ikeyany 9y ago
  There's a possible win—people would have assumed he was sincere in his apology. Sure it would be bad for business, but perhaps some things are more important than business.
- WalterSear 9y ago
  There's no conspiracy: huge political ad campaigns were purchased in rubles sent from Russian bank accounts. Moreover: * Monthly meetings with Yuri Milner after he invests $200 million dollars of Gazprom money in facebook after the 2008 crash. * Facebook assigning liaisons to work at the Trump campaign offices - side by side, if not directly with, Cambridge Analytica. Kushner implies it's directly with them. “We found that Facebook and digital targeting were the most effective ways to reach the audiences. After the primary, we started ramping up because we knew that doing a national campaign is different than doing a primary campaign. That was when we formalized the system because we had to ramp up for digital fundraising. We brought in Cambridge Analytica. I called some of my friends from Silicon Valley who were some of the best digital marketers in the world. And I asked them how to scale this stuff." http://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-40852227/the-digital-guru-who-helped-donald-trump-to-the-presidency http://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-40852227/the-digital-gur...

YesNoYesNoNo101 9y ago

Slapping those in the face who make the laws your company needs to abide to is never a good idea.

headmelted 9y ago

Everything you've said is utterly accurate and yet I still think this is a terrible decision. We'll have to witness some hapless middle-manager undergo the same circus, but with every new person to speak we'll have a customary "I simply cannot believe Mr. Zuckerberg did not think it was important for him to be here in person!". Having a fall guy give terrible answers looks worse than him giving terrible answers. At the very least send Sheryl Sandberg - the message they're sending out right now is that they aren't taking it seriously.

andyjohnson0 9y ago
> We'll have to witness some hapless middle-manager undergo the same circus According to The Guardian, Facebook said that "the company would be putting forward its chief technology officer, Mike Schroepfer, or its chief product officer, Chris Cox." https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/27/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-declines-to-appear-before-uk-fake-news-inquiry-mps https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/27/facebook-...
- aylmao 9y ago
  It's no secret that Zukerberg is not very charismatic; IMO he looks kinda rehearsed and scared when he speaks in public. Cox and Schroepfer both seem more comfortable in front of cameras from what I can find online, and to be honest would probably have better insight into what happened. After all, it's their jobs as the heads of product, and technology.
  - liberte82 9y ago
    I think he's autistic personally, or getting close to it on the spectrum. He embodies a lot of the traits. His personality in public reminds me a lot of Connor McDavid, who I also suspect.
- headmelted 9y ago
  Which is fair enough, but the point is it's not Mark or Sheryl. They want a celebrity they can shake their fists at and give a right telling off to. Politicians don't build their careers giving tongue-lashings to non-public figures, and that's going to be a problem now. As I type this, I've just read that Zuckerberg has agreed to testify before a congressional committee - this is going to piss off MPs in the UK all the more though because he snubbed them first (which in turns means whoever gets sent is going to get a lot more abuse and more of the "Where is he!?" feigned outrage). I'm frankly surprised that Sheryl Sandberg isn't being sent to the UK if Zuckerberg is testifying in the US (although I don't see why he can't do both). The whole angle at the time of her hiring was that she would be "the grown up in the room". I realize that was a long time ago now, but if ever there was a time for the COO to step up this has to be it.

grecy 9y ago

Would you feel the same way if the CEO of some massive Russian or Chinese firm holding the private data on millions and millions of American citizens refused to appear before the American Congress?

gambiting 9y ago
I mean....I would still recognize it as the correct business decision, even though I would personally dislike it. Those two are not mutually exclusive.
- ModernMech 9y ago
  Interesting how the "correct" business decision often deviates from what we feel is morally responsible.
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    No one said "morally responsible", just "I would personally dislike it". I also dislike that I'll have to wait at red lights this morning; that doesn't make red lights morally deviant.

nealdt 9y ago

I am sure certain members of the Gov won't forget the lack of his appearance (and the impression it gives) so who knows if it was a good business decision or not, down the line.

JustAnotherPat 9y ago

As an American, I have to say Parliament debates are relatively entertaining and seem light years more intelligent than what comes out of Congress.

desertedisland 9y ago

This was not a trial, this was an enquiry. It was a massive opportunity - a worldwide stage - for Zuckerberg to get ahead of the questions about Facebook, reassure shareholders and users, and publicly defend his company. Now he and the company just look weaselly, defensive and contemptuous. Public opinion of Facebook is in freefall. That is a huge problem that is very difficult to turn around with big real world consequences: loss of advertising already and there will now be pressure on politicians in Europe and the US to regulate and fine. Seriously he really messed up on this.