4 ms·

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 f

by 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.
    - deusofnull 8y ago
      Certainly. One name for that for that entire phenomenon you're describing the functioning of is 'The Spectacle'. I don't mean just the dictionary definition of spectacle, rather I'm referencing the Situationist + Critical Theory concept of The Spectacle. Guy Debord's "The Society of the Spectacle" is a wild piece of thought. It's an absolute tome, but essentially society is now mediated by social relations of spectacle which are symbols / signs / abstractions of actual material relations. And like you're saying, politicians play a huge role in wielding spectacle towards their material goals. Some of this might seem strangely familiar / redundant but that just speaks to the impact Situationist thinking has had on our conception of society and culture. Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle (Paris, 1967). http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/1.htm http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/1.htm
- RIMR 8y ago
  Hey, at least one of you in this thread is disclosing your employment with Google as you criticize the Government for demanding answers from your employer's top executives on matters of Foreign actors threatening our Democracy.
wjp3 8y ago
Which should tell folks what kind of hearing this was.
- oihoaihsfoiahsf 8y ago
  No need to guess. You can look at the treatment Jack and Sheryl received. A bunch of ignorant, annoyed blowhards basically talked at them for a few hours, accomplishing nothing and expanding the pool of useful knowledge exactly zero.
  - chooseaname 8y ago
    > A bunch of ignorant, annoyed blowhards... The very ones that the citizens _voted_ for.
    - oihoaihsfoiahsf 8y ago
      The citizens might be idiots, or the human social system might be so broken such that no matter who you vote for they are game-theoretically forced to behave this way. Whatever the case may be, I don't blame Page for declining to inflict that experience on himself.
- close04 8y ago
  It makes sense to get the person at the top. They are ultimately responsible/accountable for things. They are well prepared in advance so why not go for them?
  - mcny 8y ago
    > It makes sense to get the person at the top. They are ultimately responsible/accountable for things. They are well prepared in advance so why not go for them? What's the point? Is anyone actually responsible/accountable? Did anything change at Wells Fargo? Equifax? Wells Fargo blackballed employees who make $35k a year. The CEO testified in Congress and took his golden parachute. I am trying to understand what responsibility and accountability mean. https://www.c-span.org/video/?415547-1/ceo-john-stumpf-testifies-unauthorized-wells-fargo-accounts&live https://www.c-span.org/video/?415547-1/ceo-john-stumpf-testi... Previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12696494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12696494
394549 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. Why is this a problem? The CEO is the public face of the company. If Congress wants to question the company about serious issues, it shouldn't settle for a little-known subordinate who has much less authority or accountability for the decisions Congress wants to ask about.
- joering2 8y ago
  That and also they learnt their lesson: first Facebook hearings were very frustrating when all they heard was: “I dont know answer to this questio, and I will ask Mr. Zickerberg [when I see him next time] and will let you know [when in reality I will never see you again because if FB is ever invited again we will send another top exec]”. I for once appload congressmen/women for not falling for this sinple trick again.
  - chosenbreed 8y ago
    Okay...so they didn't fall that trick...but I get the impression that all they want is the opportunity to grill the top executive. The best that can happen is that said executive will apologize, prostrate, etc and the show goes on...
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > but I get the impression that all they want is the opportunity to grill the top executive Of that's all they wanted, they'd issue a subpoena for the top executive. That removes choice. What they want is, in order of preference: (1) Both ritual validation of the legitimacy of their efforts via the voluntary participation of top executives combined with the increased media attention for their showboating that comes with having the top executive in the hot seat, or, failing that (2) The opportunity to showboat about the firms decision not to send the top executive. If they were interested in substance, they would accept the firm sending the most appropriate person to address the actual issue, and if they felt the offered person wasn't the right person, they'd issue subpoenas to compel the testimony of the people who are really needed. But substantive answers aren't what the hearing is about.
tptacek 8y ago
That's not how it works. When they called Wells Fargo to testify, they didn't allow them to send a risk or compliance officer; they subpoena'd Tim Sloan, the CEO of the bank.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> They want figureheads. They also want to to get either the ritual validation of voluntary submission or the opportunity for theatrical (but fundamentally dishonest) complaint about non-compliance; if it was really important to have the specific witnesses there, they would forgo both and issue compulsory legislative subpoenas, which is fully within their power. By not doing so, they are, in fact, saying they don't consider the testimony of the invited witness all that important to the legislative function, so the theatrics around the decision not to accept the voluntary invitation are clearly unwarranted.

by 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.
  - deusofnull 8y ago
    Certainly. One name for that for that entire phenomenon you're describing the functioning of is 'The Spectacle'. I don't mean just the dictionary definition of spectacle, rather I'm referencing the Situationist + Critical Theory concept of The Spectacle. Guy Debord's "The Society of the Spectacle" is a wild piece of thought. It's an absolute tome, but essentially society is now mediated by social relations of spectacle which are symbols / signs / abstractions of actual material relations. And like you're saying, politicians play a huge role in wielding spectacle towards their material goals. Some of this might seem strangely familiar / redundant but that just speaks to the impact Situationist thinking has had on our conception of society and culture. Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle (Paris, 1967). http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/1.htm http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/1.htm
RIMR 8y ago
Hey, at least one of you in this thread is disclosing your employment with Google as you criticize the Government for demanding answers from your employer's top executives on matters of Foreign actors threatening our Democracy.

wjp3 8y ago

Which should tell folks what kind of hearing this was.

oihoaihsfoiahsf 8y ago
No need to guess. You can look at the treatment Jack and Sheryl received. A bunch of ignorant, annoyed blowhards basically talked at them for a few hours, accomplishing nothing and expanding the pool of useful knowledge exactly zero.
- chooseaname 8y ago
  > A bunch of ignorant, annoyed blowhards... The very ones that the citizens _voted_ for.
  - oihoaihsfoiahsf 8y ago
    The citizens might be idiots, or the human social system might be so broken such that no matter who you vote for they are game-theoretically forced to behave this way. Whatever the case may be, I don't blame Page for declining to inflict that experience on himself.
close04 8y ago
It makes sense to get the person at the top. They are ultimately responsible/accountable for things. They are well prepared in advance so why not go for them?
- mcny 8y ago
  > It makes sense to get the person at the top. They are ultimately responsible/accountable for things. They are well prepared in advance so why not go for them? What's the point? Is anyone actually responsible/accountable? Did anything change at Wells Fargo? Equifax? Wells Fargo blackballed employees who make $35k a year. The CEO testified in Congress and took his golden parachute. I am trying to understand what responsibility and accountability mean. https://www.c-span.org/video/?415547-1/ceo-john-stumpf-testifies-unauthorized-wells-fargo-accounts&live https://www.c-span.org/video/?415547-1/ceo-john-stumpf-testi... Previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12696494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12696494

394549 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. Why is this a problem? The CEO is the public face of the company. If Congress wants to question the company about serious issues, it shouldn't settle for a little-known subordinate who has much less authority or accountability for the decisions Congress wants to ask about.

joering2 8y ago
That and also they learnt their lesson: first Facebook hearings were very frustrating when all they heard was: “I dont know answer to this questio, and I will ask Mr. Zickerberg [when I see him next time] and will let you know [when in reality I will never see you again because if FB is ever invited again we will send another top exec]”. I for once appload congressmen/women for not falling for this sinple trick again.
- chosenbreed 8y ago
  Okay...so they didn't fall that trick...but I get the impression that all they want is the opportunity to grill the top executive. The best that can happen is that said executive will apologize, prostrate, etc and the show goes on...
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > but I get the impression that all they want is the opportunity to grill the top executive Of that's all they wanted, they'd issue a subpoena for the top executive. That removes choice. What they want is, in order of preference: (1) Both ritual validation of the legitimacy of their efforts via the voluntary participation of top executives combined with the increased media attention for their showboating that comes with having the top executive in the hot seat, or, failing that (2) The opportunity to showboat about the firms decision not to send the top executive. If they were interested in substance, they would accept the firm sending the most appropriate person to address the actual issue, and if they felt the offered person wasn't the right person, they'd issue subpoenas to compel the testimony of the people who are really needed. But substantive answers aren't what the hearing is about.

tptacek 8y ago

That's not how it works. When they called Wells Fargo to testify, they didn't allow them to send a risk or compliance officer; they subpoena'd Tim Sloan, the CEO of the bank.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> They want figureheads. They also want to to get either the ritual validation of voluntary submission or the opportunity for theatrical (but fundamentally dishonest) complaint about non-compliance; if it was really important to have the specific witnesses there, they would forgo both and issue compulsory legislative subpoenas, which is fully within their power. By not doing so, they are, in fact, saying they don't consider the testimony of the invited witness all that important to the legislative function, so the theatrics around the decision not to accept the voluntary invitation are clearly unwarranted.