4 ms·

dumb. they didnt let him answer the question. he asked for clarification. were they asking about tech companies, messaging companies, or something else (adve

by basch 9y ago

dumb. they didnt let him answer the question. he asked for clarification. were they asking about tech companies, messaging companies, or something else (advertising companies and publishers? they never got to the other categories) BUT had they been able to ask a clear question, they could have gotten to the point that he doesnt have many messaging competitors (wechat/snapchat/google/skype.) more importantly they could have gone a more standard protocol/decentralization approach and asked him about going back towards intra-messenger inoperability. should facebook messenger be able to talk to skype and hangouts? ALL email providers talk to each other (within reason) and if i leave gmail i can go somewhere else and CHOOSE not to email other people with gmail. this question should have been about anticompetitive acquisitions and closed/open platforms.

sjg007 9y ago
Maybe an inquisitive Congressional staffer reads HackerNews and can get their boss to ask the question tomorrow.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  Why? If the boss wanted information, they could get it the normal way. The point of calling someone to testify before Congress is to embarrass that person, and that point is generally not well served by asking sensible questions.
  - sjg007 9y ago
    Is it? I think the point is to get more information, to ask questions that have not been asked and decide if the government needs to take further action. They do this by introducing legislation. I think the electioneering has them spooked as well.
    - drivingmenuts 9y ago
      The point of most Congressional hearings is to make it appear that Congress is interested and involved in solving a problem. It's theatre. Yes, there may be genuine concern and a desire to get something done, but that isn't going to happen in front of the cameras - it's going to happen in committee meetings and discussions. What happened today was the political equivalent of WWE and just about as useful.
    - sfifs 9y ago
      The point of public political hearings is PR. To help legislators show voters that they care about whatever crisis is top of news. Information seeking and legislation writing happens in closed door negotiations with lobbyists and lawyers.
      - sjg007 9y ago
        I think this is overly cynical. Plenty of politicians care what people think and they do care if companies are acting badly. The lobbyists come in later to defuse the situation. This issue in particular is a GDPR like issue. I see some strong regulation coming. It won't hurt Facebook since they are the social network but it will change the dynamic.
        closeparen 9y ago
        A Senator is the CEO of a decent-sized public policy research and advocacy organization. He steers the ship, appoints senior staff, and handles the most important negotiations and appearances personally. He doesn't get in the weeds on background research. His office is in constant debate, negotiation, and consultation with a complex web of think tanks, advocacy groups, pollsters, campaign operatives, the White House, and other Congresscritters to develop policy and negotiate its passage. There's an entire professional ecosystem of policy wonks and career staffers dedicated to this sort of thing. (Only some of them are corporate shills). If Senator Graham genuinely wanted to know about Facebook's competition, there would be legions of staffers and thousands of pages of reports on it. If Senator Graham were genuinely not sure what to do about Facebook, there are exceptionally well-informed people in his office to summarize the landscape, the propsals, the pros and cons, and to debate the finer points, who are deeply familiar with everything AEI/Heritage/Cato/Brookings have to say about it, etc. because that's their full-time job. By the time you hear a pointed question in the committee hearing room or a speech in a floor "debate" from a Senator, they've been over it with staff, decided on a position, and calculated the optimal move to present to the cameras. That you enjoy or agree with the thrust of this particular show has no bearing on the theatricality of committee hearings as a tactic. They wouldn't do it if no one enjoyed it. It's not that politicians don't debate things in good faith. It's that they do it with and through staff (who are more like the people you find in high school debate than televised election debate), behind closed doors, and not on the floor.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Turbots 9y ago
The biggest competitor to Whatsapp is Telegram imo

by basch 9y ago

sjg007 9y ago

Maybe an inquisitive Congressional staffer reads HackerNews and can get their boss to ask the question tomorrow.

thaumasiotes 9y ago
Why? If the boss wanted information, they could get it the normal way. The point of calling someone to testify before Congress is to embarrass that person, and that point is generally not well served by asking sensible questions.
- sjg007 9y ago
  Is it? I think the point is to get more information, to ask questions that have not been asked and decide if the government needs to take further action. They do this by introducing legislation. I think the electioneering has them spooked as well.
  - drivingmenuts 9y ago
    The point of most Congressional hearings is to make it appear that Congress is interested and involved in solving a problem. It's theatre. Yes, there may be genuine concern and a desire to get something done, but that isn't going to happen in front of the cameras - it's going to happen in committee meetings and discussions. What happened today was the political equivalent of WWE and just about as useful.
  - sfifs 9y ago
    The point of public political hearings is PR. To help legislators show voters that they care about whatever crisis is top of news. Information seeking and legislation writing happens in closed door negotiations with lobbyists and lawyers.
    - sjg007 9y ago
      I think this is overly cynical. Plenty of politicians care what people think and they do care if companies are acting badly. The lobbyists come in later to defuse the situation. This issue in particular is a GDPR like issue. I see some strong regulation coming. It won't hurt Facebook since they are the social network but it will change the dynamic.
      - closeparen 9y ago
        A Senator is the CEO of a decent-sized public policy research and advocacy organization. He steers the ship, appoints senior staff, and handles the most important negotiations and appearances personally. He doesn't get in the weeds on background research. His office is in constant debate, negotiation, and consultation with a complex web of think tanks, advocacy groups, pollsters, campaign operatives, the White House, and other Congresscritters to develop policy and negotiate its passage. There's an entire professional ecosystem of policy wonks and career staffers dedicated to this sort of thing. (Only some of them are corporate shills). If Senator Graham genuinely wanted to know about Facebook's competition, there would be legions of staffers and thousands of pages of reports on it. If Senator Graham were genuinely not sure what to do about Facebook, there are exceptionally well-informed people in his office to summarize the landscape, the propsals, the pros and cons, and to debate the finer points, who are deeply familiar with everything AEI/Heritage/Cato/Brookings have to say about it, etc. because that's their full-time job. By the time you hear a pointed question in the committee hearing room or a speech in a floor "debate" from a Senator, they've been over it with staff, decided on a position, and calculated the optimal move to present to the cameras. That you enjoy or agree with the thrust of this particular show has no bearing on the theatricality of committee hearings as a tactic. They wouldn't do it if no one enjoyed it. It's not that politicians don't debate things in good faith. It's that they do it with and through staff (who are more like the people you find in high school debate than televised election debate), behind closed doors, and not on the floor.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Turbots 9y ago

The biggest competitor to Whatsapp is Telegram imo