3 ms·

Sandberg should have asked Rubio what he thinks about the US govt support for Saudi Arabia. US claims to stand for democracy and human rights, but then goes on

Sandberg should have asked Rubio what he thinks about the US govt support for Saudi Arabia. US claims to stand for democracy and human rights, but then goes on supporting dictatorships around the world (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, ...) as well as having large trade relations with such countries (eg. China). It is almost as if the US stands by their purported values as long as they don't interfere with their geopolitics.

rchaud 8y ago
She could have, but that would be the response of a defensive witness. What on earth does FB have to be defensive about? Absolutely nothing will come from these hearings aside from "this is a complicated problem and we are trying our best" style responses. The shareholders certainly don't care and House/Senate representatives are terrified of even attempting to make a case for stronger oversight because of the risk of appearing "anti-business".
SkyMarshal 8y ago
That was my initial thought too. It’s not the responsibility of US corporations to influence or change the behavior of foreign governments, but rather to follow the laws of the countries in which the operate. They can choose to operate in those countries or not, but if they do they have to follow the law there. Changing foreign govt policies is the responsibility of the US govt, which in recent years has tended to punt on it when convenient to wealthy constituents (China, Saudi Arabia, etc). Calling out these CEOs for not doing what is the US Govt’s responsibility isn’t a good look for the Senators.
cmiles74 8y ago
It seems that United States has the exact same problem as Facebook. I don't think this is all that surprising since they are both very large organizations. As someone mentioned above, committees allow for the dilution of responsibility. While a couple of people might have a serious problem with the committee's actions, what are the odds that they have problems with the same action? And so the committee lets the bill or whatever is slide across the desk with an approval and actions we find morally questionable become official policy. The answer to this hypothetical, where Sandberg turns the question back on Rubio, would probably be more about positioning and evasion then anything of substance.

rchaud 8y ago

She could have, but that would be the response of a defensive witness. What on earth does FB have to be defensive about? Absolutely nothing will come from these hearings aside from "this is a complicated problem and we are trying our best" style responses. The shareholders certainly don't care and House/Senate representatives are terrified of even attempting to make a case for stronger oversight because of the risk of appearing "anti-business".

SkyMarshal 8y ago

That was my initial thought too. It’s not the responsibility of US corporations to influence or change the behavior of foreign governments, but rather to follow the laws of the countries in which the operate. They can choose to operate in those countries or not, but if they do they have to follow the law there. Changing foreign govt policies is the responsibility of the US govt, which in recent years has tended to punt on it when convenient to wealthy constituents (China, Saudi Arabia, etc). Calling out these CEOs for not doing what is the US Govt’s responsibility isn’t a good look for the Senators.

cmiles74 8y ago

It seems that United States has the exact same problem as Facebook. I don't think this is all that surprising since they are both very large organizations. As someone mentioned above, committees allow for the dilution of responsibility. While a couple of people might have a serious problem with the committee's actions, what are the odds that they have problems with the same action? And so the committee lets the bill or whatever is slide across the desk with an approval and actions we find morally questionable become official policy. The answer to this hypothetical, where Sandberg turns the question back on Rubio, would probably be more about positioning and evasion then anything of substance.