6 ms·

I might be missing something here but my thinking is that Google Inc/Alphabet is bigger than Larry Page. If for whatever reason he was not able to attend he cou

I might be missing something here but my thinking is that Google Inc/Alphabet is bigger than Larry Page. If for whatever reason he was not able to attend he could have sent a representative chosen from among the senior executives. It seems that neither his attendance nor Google's participation in the whole thing was not mandatory

skummetmaelk 8y ago
According to the article they did offer to send someone else. Presumable the senate was not satisfied with anyone other than the top guy.
- notsofastbuddy 8y ago
  They did seem to find Sandberg acceptable.
  - dahdum 8y ago
    Sandberg is COO, on the board, and with Facebook for over 10 years. She's most definitely top level. Google offered Walker, who was just promoted to the position back in July, and has no operational control over the company.
    - kyrra 8y ago
      Kent Walker has been at Google since 2006, has testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee before[0], and just knows a lot about Google. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/01/four-takeaways-from-the-senate-intelligence-hearing-with-facebook-twitter-and-google/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/01/fo...
      - dahdum 8y ago
        Yes, but only promoted recently, and has more of an advisory role than a leadership one. Certainly a talented guy, but not comparable to Sandberg or Dorsey.
        puzzle 8y ago
        You have no idea. Whether it's about GDPR, the Google Books lawsuit, surveillance reform, relationships with China or whatever else the policy issue of the day might be, Kent Walker was involved. He's not a leader? He has hundreds of people under him. Your "only promoted recently" makes it sound like he's a small potato. He's been around for a long time. When Google wasn't even born, at Netscape he gave JWZ the bad news about Microsoft and bad-attitude in the antitrust lawsuit (https://www.jwz.org/gruntle/rbarip.html https://www.jwz.org/gruntle/rbarip.html). Source: I used to work at Google. I would have asked Kent a policy question well before Larry or Sergey.
        nostrademons 8y ago
        Kent Walker had a leadership role back when I was hired at Google, which was nearly a decade ago. Titles don't necessarily mean all that much - he's been handling high-level legal issues (including dealing with governments) for over a decade.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  They would've accepted either Sundar Pichai, or I believe even Eric Schmidt, who is now just a "technical advisor" but was the former CEO of Google, and former executive chairman of both Google and Alphabet, would've been acceptable as well. Kent Walker doesn't make decisions about how Google conducts business, Kent's job is to whitewash it for public consumption. I believe his current title is "Vice President of Global Affairs", which is more or less a PR title, and of course, as others have noted, he's their head lawyer. Anyone can look up Kent's numerous writings on Google's Public Policy blog, the Senate wanted to speak to the people who actually make those decisions, not just be informed what the decisions are.
sidibe 8y ago
They offered their legal guy who is also one of the main leaders at Google and is probably the right person to talk about this but Congress refused. They want figureheads.
- theDoug 8y ago
  This is correct, they rejected anyone but top officials. https://www.law.com/2018/09/04/after-senate-intelligence-committee-rejection-googles-kent-walker-posts-testimony-online/?slreturn=20180813100518 https://www.law.com/2018/09/04/after-senate-intelligence-com... (Disclosure: I work at Google)
  - deusofnull 8y ago
    Of course they only wanted the senior flesh. I'm not trying to dunk on Congress too hard, but so much of their public hearings are about the spectacle of gov officials holding "someone" accountable. And it's bipartisan too, the spectacle. The Dems were looking to further the Russia election manipulation spectacle, and I'd guess Repubs were hoping to advance their narratives of "shadowbanning" and ideological search results bias.
    - DFHippie 8y ago
      To be fair to Congress, their job is really to shape events in the public interest. Considering these hearings to be pure fact-finding is a category error. If they browbeat a celebrity, this shapes events in multiple ways: it affects fundraising, it affects the behavior of the individual browbeaten and those in this individual's orbit, it affects the public narrative, and if affects actions at the voting booth. And that is only the beginning. It is an extremely complicated game with numerous players and feedback loops. You can call it "grandstanding", as though it's purposeless and ineffectual, but obviously it isn't, and really this is their job. They want to speak to certain people because they calculate that this will give them leverage to shape events in a certain way. This is how the sausage is made.
      - 8y ago
theossuary 8y ago
I'd refuse to attend any meeting where the sole reason for my presence was for others to play politics. It's like the senators are wheeling out their prized horses for others to gawk at. It's ridiculous.
wjoe 8y ago
Agreed. It feels like this is two separate stories really. Maybe Larry Page is a recluse, an eccentric, a technical thinker, a background figure, or however you want to describe him. I can understand why someone who started out writing a search engine in their garage might not be the type who feels comfortable doing public speaking in front of the Senate. But we should disconnect the man from the company. Google certainly does need to be held to account, and does need to answer these questions, both to the public and to governments. At best, it's an organizational failure of Google to not allocate someone from upper management on this - it should really be Pichai, who is really the day-to-day boss at Google. At worst it's a deliberate act of the company to avoid questioning. The attention shouldn't be directed at one man not showing up to answer questions, but the huge company who doesn't feel that it's necessary to send any of it's senior management to answer these questions. Edit: Seems that Google did offer to send a senior legal executive, and the senate refused them. Point still stands that we need to separate the company from the man, but perhaps the senate is just as focused on the "big names" as the media.
- gnode 8y ago
  > Seems that Google did offer to send a senior legal executive, and the senate refused them. This just goes to show how much of a charade these hearings are.
  - 394549 8y ago
    > This just goes to show how much of a charade these hearings are. Literally no one in the public is going to pay attention or give a shit about hearings where Congress questions lower level executives with little to no decision-making authority. It's not a charade to want to question the one guy in the company who unquestionably has authority over whatever decisions Congress wants to ask about. If you think they should settle for talking to a new exec with no authority, why not expect them to settle for talking to an intern reading prepared statements?
    - tensor 8y ago
      They are looking for information, they should question the person who can answer those the best. They are not compelling the company to make any decisions/changes and if they were it would be through legal action anyways, not talking to a CEO. This is pure grandstanding for the purpose of public spectacle. Good on Page for telling them where to stuff it. If congress wants to take these issues seriously they should drop the politics and show and start being serious.

skummetmaelk 8y ago

According to the article they did offer to send someone else. Presumable the senate was not satisfied with anyone other than the top guy.

notsofastbuddy 8y ago
They did seem to find Sandberg acceptable.
- dahdum 8y ago
  Sandberg is COO, on the board, and with Facebook for over 10 years. She's most definitely top level. Google offered Walker, who was just promoted to the position back in July, and has no operational control over the company.
  - kyrra 8y ago
    Kent Walker has been at Google since 2006, has testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee before[0], and just knows a lot about Google. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/01/four-takeaways-from-the-senate-intelligence-hearing-with-facebook-twitter-and-google/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/01/fo...
    - dahdum 8y ago
      Yes, but only promoted recently, and has more of an advisory role than a leadership one. Certainly a talented guy, but not comparable to Sandberg or Dorsey.
      - puzzle 8y ago
        You have no idea. Whether it's about GDPR, the Google Books lawsuit, surveillance reform, relationships with China or whatever else the policy issue of the day might be, Kent Walker was involved. He's not a leader? He has hundreds of people under him. Your "only promoted recently" makes it sound like he's a small potato. He's been around for a long time. When Google wasn't even born, at Netscape he gave JWZ the bad news about Microsoft and bad-attitude in the antitrust lawsuit (https://www.jwz.org/gruntle/rbarip.html https://www.jwz.org/gruntle/rbarip.html). Source: I used to work at Google. I would have asked Kent a policy question well before Larry or Sergey.
      - nostrademons 8y ago
        Kent Walker had a leadership role back when I was hired at Google, which was nearly a decade ago. Titles don't necessarily mean all that much - he's been handling high-level legal issues (including dealing with governments) for over a decade.
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
They would've accepted either Sundar Pichai, or I believe even Eric Schmidt, who is now just a "technical advisor" but was the former CEO of Google, and former executive chairman of both Google and Alphabet, would've been acceptable as well. Kent Walker doesn't make decisions about how Google conducts business, Kent's job is to whitewash it for public consumption. I believe his current title is "Vice President of Global Affairs", which is more or less a PR title, and of course, as others have noted, he's their head lawyer. Anyone can look up Kent's numerous writings on Google's Public Policy blog, the Senate wanted to speak to the people who actually make those decisions, not just be informed what the decisions are.

sidibe 8y ago

They offered their legal guy who is also one of the main leaders at Google and is probably the right person to talk about this but Congress refused. They want figureheads.

theDoug 8y ago
This is correct, they rejected anyone but top officials. https://www.law.com/2018/09/04/after-senate-intelligence-committee-rejection-googles-kent-walker-posts-testimony-online/?slreturn=20180813100518 https://www.law.com/2018/09/04/after-senate-intelligence-com... (Disclosure: I work at Google)
- deusofnull 8y ago
  Of course they only wanted the senior flesh. I'm not trying to dunk on Congress too hard, but so much of their public hearings are about the spectacle of gov officials holding "someone" accountable. And it's bipartisan too, the spectacle. The Dems were looking to further the Russia election manipulation spectacle, and I'd guess Repubs were hoping to advance their narratives of "shadowbanning" and ideological search results bias.
  - DFHippie 8y ago
    To be fair to Congress, their job is really to shape events in the public interest. Considering these hearings to be pure fact-finding is a category error. If they browbeat a celebrity, this shapes events in multiple ways: it affects fundraising, it affects the behavior of the individual browbeaten and those in this individual's orbit, it affects the public narrative, and if affects actions at the voting booth. And that is only the beginning. It is an extremely complicated game with numerous players and feedback loops. You can call it "grandstanding", as though it's purposeless and ineffectual, but obviously it isn't, and really this is their job. They want to speak to certain people because they calculate that this will give them leverage to shape events in a certain way. This is how the sausage is made.
    - 8y ago

theossuary 8y ago

I'd refuse to attend any meeting where the sole reason for my presence was for others to play politics. It's like the senators are wheeling out their prized horses for others to gawk at. It's ridiculous.

wjoe 8y ago

Agreed. It feels like this is two separate stories really. Maybe Larry Page is a recluse, an eccentric, a technical thinker, a background figure, or however you want to describe him. I can understand why someone who started out writing a search engine in their garage might not be the type who feels comfortable doing public speaking in front of the Senate. But we should disconnect the man from the company. Google certainly does need to be held to account, and does need to answer these questions, both to the public and to governments. At best, it's an organizational failure of Google to not allocate someone from upper management on this - it should really be Pichai, who is really the day-to-day boss at Google. At worst it's a deliberate act of the company to avoid questioning. The attention shouldn't be directed at one man not showing up to answer questions, but the huge company who doesn't feel that it's necessary to send any of it's senior management to answer these questions. Edit: Seems that Google did offer to send a senior legal executive, and the senate refused them. Point still stands that we need to separate the company from the man, but perhaps the senate is just as focused on the "big names" as the media.

gnode 8y ago
> Seems that Google did offer to send a senior legal executive, and the senate refused them. This just goes to show how much of a charade these hearings are.
- 394549 8y ago
  > This just goes to show how much of a charade these hearings are. Literally no one in the public is going to pay attention or give a shit about hearings where Congress questions lower level executives with little to no decision-making authority. It's not a charade to want to question the one guy in the company who unquestionably has authority over whatever decisions Congress wants to ask about. If you think they should settle for talking to a new exec with no authority, why not expect them to settle for talking to an intern reading prepared statements?
  - tensor 8y ago
    They are looking for information, they should question the person who can answer those the best. They are not compelling the company to make any decisions/changes and if they were it would be through legal action anyways, not talking to a CEO. This is pure grandstanding for the purpose of public spectacle. Good on Page for telling them where to stuff it. If congress wants to take these issues seriously they should drop the politics and show and start being serious.