5 ms·

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 lawm

by 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.
Spooky23 8y ago
It’s a hard question. We live in tumultuous times... a more left wing government could use Facebooks’ contempt for all against them, harshly.
- gberger 8y ago
  Could you please elaborate on how the political leaning of the government could affect this situation?
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    In the US, the political will to clamp down on telecom and entities like Facebook just isn’t there, because they tend to benefit from it and that type of end to end regulation isn’t in alignment with their broader interests. A more left wing US administration and Congress would be able to make sweeping changes that would heavily impact Facebook. The FCC has regulatory powers that could be expanded, legislation could enact something like the former fairness doctrine, etc. The global power of the federal government is not well appreciated.
    - gberger 8y ago
      Thanks for clarifying, I was initially confused because the article is UK/EU-based where such differentiations aren't as prevalent.
      - Spooky23 8y ago
        I think they feed each other as the US/UK wouldn’t allow for serious sanction of a major US company unless political conditions get much worse.
- nbevans 8y ago
  Likewise a right wing government could also choose more protectionist measures by blocking Facebook in favour of a home-grown solution. Much like China and a few other countries in the world... You can therefore argue that Facebook depends upon there being a stable centrist/liberal government in power.

by evv 8y ago

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.

Spooky23 8y ago

It’s a hard question. We live in tumultuous times... a more left wing government could use Facebooks’ contempt for all against them, harshly.

gberger 8y ago
Could you please elaborate on how the political leaning of the government could affect this situation?
- Spooky23 8y ago
  In the US, the political will to clamp down on telecom and entities like Facebook just isn’t there, because they tend to benefit from it and that type of end to end regulation isn’t in alignment with their broader interests. A more left wing US administration and Congress would be able to make sweeping changes that would heavily impact Facebook. The FCC has regulatory powers that could be expanded, legislation could enact something like the former fairness doctrine, etc. The global power of the federal government is not well appreciated.
  - gberger 8y ago
    Thanks for clarifying, I was initially confused because the article is UK/EU-based where such differentiations aren't as prevalent.
    - Spooky23 8y ago
      I think they feed each other as the US/UK wouldn’t allow for serious sanction of a major US company unless political conditions get much worse.
nbevans 8y ago
Likewise a right wing government could also choose more protectionist measures by blocking Facebook in favour of a home-grown solution. Much like China and a few other countries in the world... You can therefore argue that Facebook depends upon there being a stable centrist/liberal government in power.