4 ms·

In this case it isn't a "circus". Watch these hearings, they aren't as sensational as you seem to think [1]. When it comes to information warfare and propagand

In this case it isn't a "circus". Watch these hearings, they aren't as sensational as you seem to think [1]. When it comes to information warfare and propaganda, you'll see them come to the same type of conclusion on multiple panels, which is that public awareness is a key component in any effective counter measure. Giving the leaders of these industries a mic to educate the public seems in all of our best interest. Not all of these committees are some kind of "circus". It's just a normal part of how these things work. [1] Recent example: https://www.c-span.org/video/?449088-1/senate-intelligence-committee-holds-hearing-social-media-foreign-influence https://www.c-span.org/video/?449088-1/senate-intelligence-c... PS: If our politicians did all of these behind closed doors and on private phones you'd be on here complaining about that too. I prefer that some of this happens in the public eye.

joshuamorton 8y ago
There kavanaugh hearing wasn't a circus either (ignoring the protestors), but it's still just a tool to generate soundbites. A closed door hearing is for fact finding, public ones are for proselytizing.
- wybiral 8y ago
  Or... It's done in public to keep the public informed as to what issues they're looking at and help us follow along because transparency is a useful component in democracy? Just because a tiny amount of grandstanding happens doesn't make it all mock/show. Full disclosure, you're a Googler.
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    Your first paragraph would be spot on if there were only a tiny amount of grandstanding. The majority of questions at every hearing I've seen have been politically biased grandstanding, with the goal of creating a soundbite that appeals to the base, not of factually informing the public.
    - wybiral 8y ago
      Which Intelligence Committee hearings are you talking about? I linked to a recent one in a grandparent post that has almost no grandstanding as far as I'm concerned and for the IC that's usually how it is. I can't speak for the larger committees with more media attention.
      - joshuamorton 8y ago
        Let me put it this way: if you want to have a real productive discussion on data privacy, you want the head lawyer who, despite Senate grandstanding, probably does make legal decisions for the company. You don't want the guy who thinks that google, probably uses version control software, but doesn't know what it is. The ic didn't want a decision maker, they wanted a heel.
        wybiral 8y ago
        Let me put it this way: when the entire point is to educate the public about ongoing attacks and to show that these companies are taking all of this seriously... Snubbing our Intelligence Committee because Page didn't prioritize it highly enough seems, to me, to be the least helpful thing your employer could have done.
        joshuamorton 8y ago
        Except that they, as far as I know, changed from saying the head lawyer was fine, to saying the CEO or nothing with less than a month before the event. And again, if you want a discussion, you need people who are contextual experts. A CEO can't speak intelligently about security and privacy at Google or Facebook. Nor can Congress. You can discuss things in broad strokes and talk about high level initiatives, but actually real, useful discussion is unlikely. There was a popular post yesterday showing pichais response to a question about fake news at a Google internal meeting. It was a widely derided answer and being uninformed, despite it being to a roomful of engineers who work at Google. That leads to one conclusion, through any number of avenues (pichai doesn't understand the issues, realpolitik, people don't understand the issues, googlers don't understand the issues, etc.), That a congressional hearing asking Google about fake news would be unproductive theatre.

joshuamorton 8y ago

There kavanaugh hearing wasn't a circus either (ignoring the protestors), but it's still just a tool to generate soundbites. A closed door hearing is for fact finding, public ones are for proselytizing.

wybiral 8y ago
Or... It's done in public to keep the public informed as to what issues they're looking at and help us follow along because transparency is a useful component in democracy? Just because a tiny amount of grandstanding happens doesn't make it all mock/show. Full disclosure, you're a Googler.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  Your first paragraph would be spot on if there were only a tiny amount of grandstanding. The majority of questions at every hearing I've seen have been politically biased grandstanding, with the goal of creating a soundbite that appeals to the base, not of factually informing the public.
  - wybiral 8y ago
    Which Intelligence Committee hearings are you talking about? I linked to a recent one in a grandparent post that has almost no grandstanding as far as I'm concerned and for the IC that's usually how it is. I can't speak for the larger committees with more media attention.
    - joshuamorton 8y ago
      Let me put it this way: if you want to have a real productive discussion on data privacy, you want the head lawyer who, despite Senate grandstanding, probably does make legal decisions for the company. You don't want the guy who thinks that google, probably uses version control software, but doesn't know what it is. The ic didn't want a decision maker, they wanted a heel.
      - wybiral 8y ago
        Let me put it this way: when the entire point is to educate the public about ongoing attacks and to show that these companies are taking all of this seriously... Snubbing our Intelligence Committee because Page didn't prioritize it highly enough seems, to me, to be the least helpful thing your employer could have done.
        joshuamorton 8y ago
        Except that they, as far as I know, changed from saying the head lawyer was fine, to saying the CEO or nothing with less than a month before the event. And again, if you want a discussion, you need people who are contextual experts. A CEO can't speak intelligently about security and privacy at Google or Facebook. Nor can Congress. You can discuss things in broad strokes and talk about high level initiatives, but actually real, useful discussion is unlikely. There was a popular post yesterday showing pichais response to a question about fake news at a Google internal meeting. It was a widely derided answer and being uninformed, despite it being to a roomful of engineers who work at Google. That leads to one conclusion, through any number of avenues (pichai doesn't understand the issues, realpolitik, people don't understand the issues, googlers don't understand the issues, etc.), That a congressional hearing asking Google about fake news would be unproductive theatre.