7 ms·

U.K. Lawmakers accuse Facebook's CEO of leadership failure

111 points by SirLJ 8y ago

newprint 8y ago
There is no failure. It is FB business model.
flexie 8y ago
British lawmakers accuse Zuckerberg of spectacular leadership failure? Hmm... It’s not that I don’t agree, it’s just a funny accusation coming from them.
- busterarm 8y ago
  I can't imagine being a British lawmaker looking at re-election options right now. Probably a fair amount of blood being pissed, bricks being shat.
- bitL 8y ago
  "It takes one to spot one". They must be speaking from their own experience/mastery of the subject.
thinkindie 8y ago
I don't want to take the part of Zuckerberg nor Facebook, but "spectacular leadership failure" from UK lawmakers after two years trying to get out of EU is a bit funny.
- evv 8y ago
  Why do you think they are so enraged at Facebook? Cambridge Analytica and the data they stole through Facebook was pivotal for the UK's "Leave" campaign.
  - dominotw 8y ago
    > Cambridge Analytica and the data they stole through Facebook was pivotal for the UK's "Leave" campaign. Source? update, pls see my comment before downvoting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19192463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19192463
    - pjc50 8y ago
      Isn't this in the actual report that we're supposedly discussing even though none of us has read the whole thing?
      - dominotw 8y ago
        > Isn't this in the actual report Ok found the source referred in the report https://www.upguard.com/breaches/aggregate-iq-part-two-brexit https://www.upguard.com/breaches/aggregate-iq-part-two-brexi... I still don't see where it says "Cambridge was pivotal to brexit." It links it to something called "AggregateIQ" not Cambridge. Am i reading this wrong?
        pjc50 8y ago
        They're linked: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/31/aggregateiq-canadian-tech-brexit-data-riddle-cambridge-analytica https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/31/aggregateiq-...
  - taneq 8y ago
    "Stole" is the wrong word. Facebook gave it to them.
- michaelmcmillan 8y ago
  Still a valid argument, nonetheless.
Rooster61 8y ago
I'm wondering when the flashpoint will be when a standing government is publicly given the finger by a megacorporation. It's happening quite often these days through wishy-washy sideways explanations and question dodging worthy of the very government members that are doing the questioning, but eventually corporate executives will get to the point that they no longer find that they NEED to do such things, daring the world's presidents and parliaments to do anything to stop them. At that point, I think society will need to question where they have given power: to the governments through taxes and laws, or to corporations through willful dollars and convenience? After all, what power does a body have if not granted it by the people (at least ideally)?
- azernik 8y ago
  At which point the megacorps will discover that governments command actual loyalty and a monopoly on force. Corporations only have such massive power because institutions of government have abdicated their responsibility to control them. Maintaining that status quo requires business to at least pay lip service (and sometimes money) to the supremacy of government.
  - Rooster61 8y ago
    > At which point the megacorps will discover that governments command actual loyalty and a monopoly on force. Agreed, but only with the caveat that that is temporary. I think we are rapidly approaching the point that corporations will be able to sidestep the rug governments currently threaten to pull out from under them. I think that tipping point will be an interesting, if not horrifying inflection point in our history. Furthermore, much of (at least in the US's case) the "force" you speak of is now rooted in the military-industrial complex. What happens when defense contractors find that it might be more profitable to throw their hat in with a megacorp rather than the government? It's a scary thought.
    - azernik 8y ago
      How, exactly, are we approaching that point? You think militaries and police are becoming less capable? That employees are becoming more loyal to their employers?
Bucephalus355 8y ago
It’s so awkward seeing Mark Zuckerberg try to navigate all this and mostly failing, despite being a generally smart guy and all that. I’ve heard once you get in power you’ll be surrounded by 1). Ppl who are just like you because we as humans prefer that and 2). Ppl who flatter you very convincingly because we as humans also prefer that. This can be a very dangerous situation to be in. You think everything is alright while outside the world flails and rages. Who in the world is advising Mark Zuckerberg?
- steve76 8y ago
  I wish them the best of luck. Their stories of starting out with very little and ending up a success are inspirational through tough times, at least for me. To really end it, look at who profits off of people always being unhappy and fighting one another. Best bet, walk away. Don't get personal over anything, even if it's your life's work. Settle and start something new.
- chooseaname 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheryl_Sandberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheryl_Sandberg
- addicted 8y ago
  I suspect Zuckerberg’s failures have little to do with a lack of intelligence or poor management, but with the fact that Facebook has unprecedented power and size, and the only possible solutions to fix the problems Facebook presents, (massive regulation, or breakup) are not possible for him to suggest.
evv 8y ago
I'm intrigued by the incentives that Zuckerberg would have to show up to a hearing like this.. 1. What is the legal risk of not showing up? What are these lawmakers likely to do against him or Facebook? Can they compel him to personally testify? 2. What would be the moral obligation of showing up to answer questions? What does he owe them, really? 3. What is best for the financial interests of the company? What good would come out of sending Zuck out? I assume his decision was mostly directed by the answer to number 3, but the others are curious thought experiments.
- Neil44 8y ago
  The motivation to comply would come from the risk of having harmful legislation passed if you don't. Zuck either didn't think they'd do that, or didn't care if they did, or thought they'd pass legislation either way so why bother.
  - flyinglizard 8y ago
    He was right though, it'd be just a circlejerk intended to present Facebook in a negative light and give a good show to voters. There's nothing he can do or say that would make any politician emphatic to him and Facebook in a hearing.
- azernik 8y ago
  There is zero legal risk unless they decide to subpoena him, which they did not. The reason to show up is that these people have the power to make laws and make Facebook's collective life in the UK difficult, and so it is in Zuckerberg's interest not to piss them off. However, there may have been a calculation that him showing up wasn't going to make much difference to the opinions of MPs, and might provide video clips that were bad publicity.
- salawat 8y ago
  I'd imagine the answer to 1 would be placing your corporation at risk of being sanctioned or dissolved within the jurisdiction in question. There could be criminal charges as well. If I recall, the U.S. crime of contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor, escalating to the felonious perjury if you show up and lie. Both are criminal offenses, and both based on England's Parliamentary power to hold people in contempt. 2. If you wish to benefit from the protection of nation's laws, you'd best be willing to give their legislative bodies the benefit of your time. The fiduciary responsibility to U.S. stockholders means doing something that could severely depreciate share/stock prices could open an executive up to legal problems as well. 3. Not losing the capability to do business in another country ranks pretty high on best for the company. Morally speaking, the pursuit of profit normatively should not jeopardize diplomatic relationships between allies as well, but I won't pretend to know much more about international business than that.
malvosenior 8y ago
The UK's Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport Committee on Monday released its report on disinformation and "fake news" following an 18-month inquiry, which took in evidence from 73 witnesses. The report called for urgent regulation of Facebook — including an independent UK body to stamp out harmful or illegal content — and skewered Zuckerberg for refusing to give evidence to the committee three times. I almost closed my browser tab at "fake news". There are legitimate concerns about Facebook, but this isn't it. The UK government seems bound and determined to increase it's censorship foothold. Can anyone in the UK comment on how these types of things are received by regular citizens? Are you concerned that your government is cracking down on content with censorship left and right?
- Kurtz79 8y ago
  "I almost closed my browser tab at "fake news". There are legitimate concerns about Facebook, but this isn't it." That's one of the main concerns about Facebook (aside from privacy). Anyone can post any kind of fake story with tremendous reach and no accountability or traceability. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/30/read-all-about-it-the-biggest-fake-news-stories-of-2016.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/30/read-all-about-it-the-bigges...
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    CNBC pretending like this is a big deal is fake news.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
bilbo0s 8y ago
??? Lawmakers? Accuse Zuckerberg of "leadership failure"? (Brexit debacle) Um... OK.
65934 8y ago
I'm not a Zuckerberg sympathiser, but whatever he is doing is a really stressful job. Scaling is hard, and everyone fails a few times on the way. Still, these UK lawmakers taunting him is extremely ironic.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  A select committee is distinct from government, and Theresa May's inability to organise a piss up in a brewery. They are carefully bipartisan. DCMS committee currently has an equal number from Labour and Tories, and one SNP. Committees are equally happy to lay into government. As has been the case for 40 years (some might claim 200) or more, the Tories would prefer to put the Tories before anything trivial like "the National Interest". Brexit was guaranteed to be a dumpster fire from the moment Cameron put a referendum in the manifesto.
duxup 8y ago
It's not leadership failure. It is what Facebook IS fundamentally as a company. There are no rules. They proven it time and again. There is no real will to do anything differently.
ihuman 8y ago
Edit: Ignore my post. Original title is longer than the max title length for posts. The post title doesn't match the article's title. The post is "Zuckerberg roasted by lawmakers, accuse him of spectacular leadership failure", but the article is "Mark Zuckerberg humiliated by group of lawmakers, who accuse Facebook's CEO of spectacular leadership failure." The internet archive goes back to 23 minutes after the article was originally posted [0], and it still has the current title. The original poster editorialized the title. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20190218130633/https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-humiliated-by-damian-collins-committee-2019-2 https://web.archive.org/web/20190218130633/https://www.busin...
- drugme 8y ago
  Except that title was too long by 30 chars. There's an 80 character limit on titles, if you didn't know. "So if the title does not fit, you must edit it".
  - ihuman 8y ago
    I didn't know that. Thanks for letting me know.
kolbe 8y ago
Can we please, please, as a culture, quit treating the idea that someone was 'roasted' or 'embarrassed' or 'wrecked' as if it's news? If you're a news source, tell me the facts supported by salient and educated opinions about important situations. Leave the comedic commentary to John Oliver.
ausbah 8y ago
Facebook's market valuation, active user count, and other normal metrics of success for them don't appear to have been negatively influenced in any meaningful way despite the crap they've been subject to for the past 2+ years. Regardless of if Facebook is overall "good" thing to have around, from the perspective of Facebook's shareholders Zuckerburg has been a great leader for the company.
- philipov 8y ago
  Many of the worst Roman emperors were beloved by the public even as they were dismantling the Senate and packing it with their supporters.
  - ionised 8y ago
    Not a million miles away from where we are now.
- gberger 8y ago
  The same can be said about oil companies profiting from climate change. Or any other industry practice that harms consumers/society while raking in profits. And this is exactly why it needs regulation.
  - thetruthseeker1 8y ago
    May be. However lawmakers don’t roast oil execs. It seems to me like there is a lot of kabuki theater here and if law makers want to do something to improve social media, there are better ways to get Zuckerberg to co-operate than this method
    - black_puppydog 8y ago
      IMHO the situation where a whole country, let alone the rest of the world, even needs Mr Zuckerberg's cooperation to keep functioning in a democratic way, is in itself the problem. I want him and his company in a position where his cooperation/non-cooperation are a nuisance at most, irrelevant at best.
ProAm 8y ago
Kettle meet Pot, Pot meet Kettle.
arcaster 8y ago
I think all kinds, on both political isles, walks of life, etc. Would genuinely enjoy an official "Roast of Mark Zuckerberg" streamed live and hosted by Jeff Ross. With all proceeds of the stream / adverts given to the EFF or CitizenLab et al.
- arcaster 8y ago
  Pls commend or DM if you'd be interested in contributing to a crow-funded campaign for this. I'd bet we'd surpass the crowd-funding records set by Star Citizen... Could be a whole new kind of "public justice by civic discourse for charity"? lmao
billfruit 8y ago
UK government with its shady GCHQ, and all-around general incompetancy isn't realy someone to be trusted to understand and act on such nuanced issues. The UK government and its organizations have had history of extra judicial killings(Esp during the Troubles), and stockpiling nuclear weapons, morally the stuff that FB is being called out for isn't even on the same scale.
crsmithdev 8y ago
To be fair, UK lawmakers are very familiar with leadership failure these days.
julienreszka 8y ago
Usual british arrogance. THE USA ARE NOT A BRITISH COLONY. The opposite might very well be true tho.

111 points by SirLJ 8y ago

There is no failure. It is FB business model.

British lawmakers accuse Zuckerberg of spectacular leadership failure? Hmm... It’s not that I don’t agree, it’s just a funny accusation coming from them.

busterarm 8y ago
I can't imagine being a British lawmaker looking at re-election options right now. Probably a fair amount of blood being pissed, bricks being shat.
bitL 8y ago
"It takes one to spot one". They must be speaking from their own experience/mastery of the subject.

thinkindie 8y ago

I don't want to take the part of Zuckerberg nor Facebook, but "spectacular leadership failure" from UK lawmakers after two years trying to get out of EU is a bit funny.

evv 8y ago
Why do you think they are so enraged at Facebook? Cambridge Analytica and the data they stole through Facebook was pivotal for the UK's "Leave" campaign.
- dominotw 8y ago
  > Cambridge Analytica and the data they stole through Facebook was pivotal for the UK's "Leave" campaign. Source? update, pls see my comment before downvoting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19192463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19192463
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Isn't this in the actual report that we're supposedly discussing even though none of us has read the whole thing?
    - dominotw 8y ago
      > Isn't this in the actual report Ok found the source referred in the report https://www.upguard.com/breaches/aggregate-iq-part-two-brexit https://www.upguard.com/breaches/aggregate-iq-part-two-brexi... I still don't see where it says "Cambridge was pivotal to brexit." It links it to something called "AggregateIQ" not Cambridge. Am i reading this wrong?
      - pjc50 8y ago
        They're linked: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/31/aggregateiq-canadian-tech-brexit-data-riddle-cambridge-analytica https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/31/aggregateiq-...
- taneq 8y ago
  "Stole" is the wrong word. Facebook gave it to them.
michaelmcmillan 8y ago
Still a valid argument, nonetheless.

Rooster61 8y ago

I'm wondering when the flashpoint will be when a standing government is publicly given the finger by a megacorporation. It's happening quite often these days through wishy-washy sideways explanations and question dodging worthy of the very government members that are doing the questioning, but eventually corporate executives will get to the point that they no longer find that they NEED to do such things, daring the world's presidents and parliaments to do anything to stop them. At that point, I think society will need to question where they have given power: to the governments through taxes and laws, or to corporations through willful dollars and convenience? After all, what power does a body have if not granted it by the people (at least ideally)?

azernik 8y ago
At which point the megacorps will discover that governments command actual loyalty and a monopoly on force. Corporations only have such massive power because institutions of government have abdicated their responsibility to control them. Maintaining that status quo requires business to at least pay lip service (and sometimes money) to the supremacy of government.
- Rooster61 8y ago
  > At which point the megacorps will discover that governments command actual loyalty and a monopoly on force. Agreed, but only with the caveat that that is temporary. I think we are rapidly approaching the point that corporations will be able to sidestep the rug governments currently threaten to pull out from under them. I think that tipping point will be an interesting, if not horrifying inflection point in our history. Furthermore, much of (at least in the US's case) the "force" you speak of is now rooted in the military-industrial complex. What happens when defense contractors find that it might be more profitable to throw their hat in with a megacorp rather than the government? It's a scary thought.
  - azernik 8y ago
    How, exactly, are we approaching that point? You think militaries and police are becoming less capable? That employees are becoming more loyal to their employers?

Bucephalus355 8y ago

It’s so awkward seeing Mark Zuckerberg try to navigate all this and mostly failing, despite being a generally smart guy and all that. I’ve heard once you get in power you’ll be surrounded by 1). Ppl who are just like you because we as humans prefer that and 2). Ppl who flatter you very convincingly because we as humans also prefer that. This can be a very dangerous situation to be in. You think everything is alright while outside the world flails and rages. Who in the world is advising Mark Zuckerberg?

steve76 8y ago
I wish them the best of luck. Their stories of starting out with very little and ending up a success are inspirational through tough times, at least for me. To really end it, look at who profits off of people always being unhappy and fighting one another. Best bet, walk away. Don't get personal over anything, even if it's your life's work. Settle and start something new.
chooseaname 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheryl_Sandberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheryl_Sandberg
addicted 8y ago
I suspect Zuckerberg’s failures have little to do with a lack of intelligence or poor management, but with the fact that Facebook has unprecedented power and size, and the only possible solutions to fix the problems Facebook presents, (massive regulation, or breakup) are not possible for him to suggest.

evv 8y ago

I'm intrigued by the incentives that Zuckerberg would have to show up to a hearing like this.. 1. What is the legal risk of not showing up? What are these lawmakers likely to do against him or Facebook? Can they compel him to personally testify? 2. What would be the moral obligation of showing up to answer questions? What does he owe them, really? 3. What is best for the financial interests of the company? What good would come out of sending Zuck out? I assume his decision was mostly directed by the answer to number 3, but the others are curious thought experiments.

Neil44 8y ago
The motivation to comply would come from the risk of having harmful legislation passed if you don't. Zuck either didn't think they'd do that, or didn't care if they did, or thought they'd pass legislation either way so why bother.
- flyinglizard 8y ago
  He was right though, it'd be just a circlejerk intended to present Facebook in a negative light and give a good show to voters. There's nothing he can do or say that would make any politician emphatic to him and Facebook in a hearing.
azernik 8y ago
There is zero legal risk unless they decide to subpoena him, which they did not. The reason to show up is that these people have the power to make laws and make Facebook's collective life in the UK difficult, and so it is in Zuckerberg's interest not to piss them off. However, there may have been a calculation that him showing up wasn't going to make much difference to the opinions of MPs, and might provide video clips that were bad publicity.
salawat 8y ago
I'd imagine the answer to 1 would be placing your corporation at risk of being sanctioned or dissolved within the jurisdiction in question. There could be criminal charges as well. If I recall, the U.S. crime of contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor, escalating to the felonious perjury if you show up and lie. Both are criminal offenses, and both based on England's Parliamentary power to hold people in contempt. 2. If you wish to benefit from the protection of nation's laws, you'd best be willing to give their legislative bodies the benefit of your time. The fiduciary responsibility to U.S. stockholders means doing something that could severely depreciate share/stock prices could open an executive up to legal problems as well. 3. Not losing the capability to do business in another country ranks pretty high on best for the company. Morally speaking, the pursuit of profit normatively should not jeopardize diplomatic relationships between allies as well, but I won't pretend to know much more about international business than that.

malvosenior 8y ago

The UK's Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport Committee on Monday released its report on disinformation and "fake news" following an 18-month inquiry, which took in evidence from 73 witnesses. The report called for urgent regulation of Facebook — including an independent UK body to stamp out harmful or illegal content — and skewered Zuckerberg for refusing to give evidence to the committee three times. I almost closed my browser tab at "fake news". There are legitimate concerns about Facebook, but this isn't it. The UK government seems bound and determined to increase it's censorship foothold. Can anyone in the UK comment on how these types of things are received by regular citizens? Are you concerned that your government is cracking down on content with censorship left and right?

Kurtz79 8y ago
"I almost closed my browser tab at "fake news". There are legitimate concerns about Facebook, but this isn't it." That's one of the main concerns about Facebook (aside from privacy). Anyone can post any kind of fake story with tremendous reach and no accountability or traceability. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/30/read-all-about-it-the-biggest-fake-news-stories-of-2016.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/30/read-all-about-it-the-bigges...
- malvosenior 8y ago
  CNBC pretending like this is a big deal is fake news.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

bilbo0s 8y ago

??? Lawmakers? Accuse Zuckerberg of "leadership failure"? (Brexit debacle) Um... OK.

65934 8y ago

I'm not a Zuckerberg sympathiser, but whatever he is doing is a really stressful job. Scaling is hard, and everyone fails a few times on the way. Still, these UK lawmakers taunting him is extremely ironic.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
A select committee is distinct from government, and Theresa May's inability to organise a piss up in a brewery. They are carefully bipartisan. DCMS committee currently has an equal number from Labour and Tories, and one SNP. Committees are equally happy to lay into government. As has been the case for 40 years (some might claim 200) or more, the Tories would prefer to put the Tories before anything trivial like "the National Interest". Brexit was guaranteed to be a dumpster fire from the moment Cameron put a referendum in the manifesto.

duxup 8y ago

It's not leadership failure. It is what Facebook IS fundamentally as a company. There are no rules. They proven it time and again. There is no real will to do anything differently.

ihuman 8y ago

Edit: Ignore my post. Original title is longer than the max title length for posts. The post title doesn't match the article's title. The post is "Zuckerberg roasted by lawmakers, accuse him of spectacular leadership failure", but the article is "Mark Zuckerberg humiliated by group of lawmakers, who accuse Facebook's CEO of spectacular leadership failure." The internet archive goes back to 23 minutes after the article was originally posted [0], and it still has the current title. The original poster editorialized the title. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20190218130633/https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-humiliated-by-damian-collins-committee-2019-2 https://web.archive.org/web/20190218130633/https://www.busin...

drugme 8y ago
Except that title was too long by 30 chars. There's an 80 character limit on titles, if you didn't know. "So if the title does not fit, you must edit it".
- ihuman 8y ago
  I didn't know that. Thanks for letting me know.

kolbe 8y ago

Can we please, please, as a culture, quit treating the idea that someone was 'roasted' or 'embarrassed' or 'wrecked' as if it's news? If you're a news source, tell me the facts supported by salient and educated opinions about important situations. Leave the comedic commentary to John Oliver.

ausbah 8y ago

Facebook's market valuation, active user count, and other normal metrics of success for them don't appear to have been negatively influenced in any meaningful way despite the crap they've been subject to for the past 2+ years. Regardless of if Facebook is overall "good" thing to have around, from the perspective of Facebook's shareholders Zuckerburg has been a great leader for the company.

philipov 8y ago
Many of the worst Roman emperors were beloved by the public even as they were dismantling the Senate and packing it with their supporters.
- ionised 8y ago
  Not a million miles away from where we are now.
gberger 8y ago
The same can be said about oil companies profiting from climate change. Or any other industry practice that harms consumers/society while raking in profits. And this is exactly why it needs regulation.
- thetruthseeker1 8y ago
  May be. However lawmakers don’t roast oil execs. It seems to me like there is a lot of kabuki theater here and if law makers want to do something to improve social media, there are better ways to get Zuckerberg to co-operate than this method
  - black_puppydog 8y ago
    IMHO the situation where a whole country, let alone the rest of the world, even needs Mr Zuckerberg's cooperation to keep functioning in a democratic way, is in itself the problem. I want him and his company in a position where his cooperation/non-cooperation are a nuisance at most, irrelevant at best.

ProAm 8y ago

Kettle meet Pot, Pot meet Kettle.

arcaster 8y ago

I think all kinds, on both political isles, walks of life, etc. Would genuinely enjoy an official "Roast of Mark Zuckerberg" streamed live and hosted by Jeff Ross. With all proceeds of the stream / adverts given to the EFF or CitizenLab et al.

arcaster 8y ago
Pls commend or DM if you'd be interested in contributing to a crow-funded campaign for this. I'd bet we'd surpass the crowd-funding records set by Star Citizen... Could be a whole new kind of "public justice by civic discourse for charity"? lmao

billfruit 8y ago

UK government with its shady GCHQ, and all-around general incompetancy isn't realy someone to be trusted to understand and act on such nuanced issues. The UK government and its organizations have had history of extra judicial killings(Esp during the Troubles), and stockpiling nuclear weapons, morally the stuff that FB is being called out for isn't even on the same scale.

crsmithdev 8y ago

To be fair, UK lawmakers are very familiar with leadership failure these days.

julienreszka 8y ago

Usual british arrogance. THE USA ARE NOT A BRITISH COLONY. The opposite might very well be true tho.