5 ms·
Google criticized for skipping hearing on foreign meddling
- lathiat 8y agoWhat I don't understand is why the "top executive" has to be the one to attend from Google. Another source said Google offered to send "someone", just not the top level execs (e.g. Pindar; a la Zuck, Jack) Can someone explain this to me? They're big companies, the "top executive" may not (or even likely is not) the best person to attend anyway. As much as I equally appreciate they are also the figure heads. But I guess that's kind of my point... seems more like a governmental marketing exercise in some ways to want those people only specifically.
- Eridrus 8y agoPoliticians like to feel important. This reminds me of the UK parliament demanding Zuck go to hearing there and not some other executive. Also reminds me of Kanye tweeting "I need to meet with Larry from Google". It's all nonsense, the question is, how much does not playing ball with the nonsense hurt you? This article wants to say that not playing ball could lead to more regulation/worse treatment by legislators. I'm not sure I really believe that Congress will actually do anything, but who knows.
- draw_down 8y agoMaximum spectacle. These things aren't actually about discovering or learning anything, any discovery that's going to happen has already taken place by the time everyone sits down in the room with all the cameras. It's more about the optics of the Big Important Person sitting before a panel of Congress members. This is why I sort of respect that Google just didn't play ball, although it is ostensibly bad that they flouted the government's wishes to some extent. It's silly.