I think people are really trying hard to get this to fit their narrative. Admittedly, I did not watch the whole thing, but out of the multiple hours I had the e

I think people are really trying hard to get this to fit their narrative. Admittedly, I did not watch the whole thing, but out of the multiple hours I had the energy to watch I can't see how you would blame Zuckerberg. Not saying that he's a perfect guy, but he is not "ignorant" or "deliberately misleading". Many of the questions he was asked were meant to deliberately mislead and create unnecessary hatred for MZ, even if it was something very innocent. 90% of the questions were ignorant of literally all of the technology being discussed, making either outlandish claims (e.g. blaming Facebook for not being able to control how you use downloaded data from the API) or getting caught up on irrelevant details (conflating selling of user data with selling of user data-based ad space). MZ was not adversarial at all and openly embraced the suggestions for new legislation (while acknowledging the shortcomings). When he said his team would get back to them later, the reason was pretty clear. He didn't want any bad sound bites to bear his name. By using his tech team, he was able to avoid answering questions that sound bad to a Facebook user. To be completely fair, it seemed that the whole goal of the hearing was to create outrage rather than get at any truth. He also had plausible deniability here because he doesn't know all the specific technicalities of the millions (billions?) of lines of code Facebook uses, so he can basically argue that he wasn't sure what they were asking was technically true or false. Is this borderline lying? Sort of, but that doesn't mean he did the wrong thing here for either Congress or his own company. He's not trying to protect from Congress, he's trying to protect from public outrage.