30 ms·

Zuckerberg and Sandberg will defy Canadian subpoena, risking contempt vote

crazygringo 7y ago
On the one hand, yes companies should be held accountable to governments everywhere they operate, of course. On the other hand, a multinational company can't be expected to fly its CEO to a legislative hearing in every country where it operates... you could spend an entire year doing that instead of actually running your company. It's just straight-up logistically impossible, a legitimately unreasonable burden. And if a government legitimately just needs information as opposed to just optics, they don't need the CEO anyways. Where do you draw the line? It seems pretty reasonable for the CEO to show up to hearings for the country where your company is headquartered... but to send lieutenants everywhere else, no?
- Tyrek 7y ago
  It seems equally reasonable to withdraw from doing business in countries where you can't bother to show up for a hearing. Where do you draw the line?
  - crazygringo 7y ago
    > Facebook said is it sending Kevin Chan, its head of public policy for Facebook Canada, and Neil Potts, its director of public policy, to the meeting instead. They're sending multiple people, just not the CEO. It's logistically impossible for a CEO to be in every country at every government's whim, and also run their company. Shouldn't a company be allowed to choose who represents it legally?
    - CosmicShadow 7y ago
      If you had to make a list of things that you'd think a CEO would be responsible for, this sure seems like one of them. If they've got enough people to send in their place, then they also have enough people to run the company while they do the things like this. It's not like it's just any country's whim, it's a group of G7 countries conveniently meeting next door. If every single little country was calling on them all the time, then yeah maybe, but this seems like one of those "pick and choose" situation where you should send the CEO and Founder.
      - sjburt 7y ago
        Is there any chance that Zuckerberg (or his subordinate) will say anything that everyone doesn't already know? What is the point of him appearing exactly?
        meddlepal 7y ago
        Politicians are looking for a soundbite and to humiliate him.
        sleepybrett 7y ago
        He should already be humiliated, the fact that he isn't is very disturbing.
        daniel-cussen 7y ago
        Yeah like when Zuckerberg told senator Leahy, he'd get back to him about the issue he was being asked about. It'd be the perfect chance to finally answer that question.
        cookiecaper 7y ago
        > What is the point of him appearing exactly? Zuckerberg makes great fodder for Bad Lip Reading. :) [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zCDvOsdL9Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zCDvOsdL9Q
        labster 7y ago
        The potential, albeit unlikely, that questioning Zuck causes him to feel the smallest iota of shame for his actions in destabilizing democracy.
      - bin0 7y ago
        > If every single little country was calling on them all the time, then yeah maybe, but this seems like one of those "pick and choose" situation where you should send the CEO and Founder. So legal authority is determined by the size of the nation? Or the number? They either can or cannot compel him to do so, regardless of size or number.
    - jammygit 7y ago
      Facebook famously answers in scenarios like this “I’m not sure” in order to avoid answering questions. It is not sufficient for a lackey to go considering this.
    - atonse 7y ago
      A CEO who flies a private jet with great connectivity can't take a day to make a 4 hour flight (where he can continue to work and take calls) to show up? What are you worried about? He's going to be stuck in lines all day and won't be able to work on the plane because he didn't want to buy airplane wifi? If there's anyone who will simply not be disrupted AT ALL by this kind of visit, it's the CEO of a $500bn company who has the resources of a small nation at his disposal. Hell, it's even practically the same time zone.
- nearbuy 7y ago
  I tend to agree, but in this case it's a meeting of 10 countries representing 450 million people.
  - tjpnz 7y ago
    And they had no issue fronting in the US. Clearly the opinions from representatives to those countries are worth less in their eyes.
  - pfarnsworth 7y ago
    Did they send the leaders of those 10 countries, or just the representatives?
    - spinach 7y ago
      Are you seriously trying to equate the CEO of Facebook to 10 heads of state? Just how high of a pedestal do you put FB on?
      - barry-cotter 7y ago
        I’m sure if Heads of State were in attendance Zuckerberg would be delighted to attend. As it is he has nothing to gain from attending a civil servants ego stroking summit. It’s not about what other people think of Zuckerberg, it’s what he thinks because he can do it. The Canadian government is not going to try and prosecute him or shut down Facebook.
        rudiv 7y ago
        Do civil servants frequently serve in parliament where you're from? In my country, you're proscribed from running in any significant elections (state legislature/national legislature) if you're a serving civil servant. I may be wrong, but I presumed that was the case more places than not. I know that it is the case in Britain, which may be relevant to Canada. (An office of profit under the crown disqualifies one from parliament).
      - 7y ago
- bassman9000 7y ago
  Where do you draw the line? At the point in which you have 1B+ users, access to mind-boggling quantities of information about them, and unprecedented power over elections.
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    If we think Facebook has "power" over elections, let's just give up on democracy, honestly. That's abdicating any responsibility voters have for their own votes.
    - brlewis 7y ago
      I do think big media have a lot of power to influence elections, but I'm not ready to give up on democracy yet. Also, it's only possible for me to abdicate the responsibility of one voter, not all of us.
      - pferde 7y ago
        Big media has always had a lot of power to influence election. This is mostly about FB being the new kid on this block, and traditional big media not liking it, and firing at FB from all barrels. I do not like Facebook at all, but I can recognize a sustained media smear campaign when it's smacking me in the eyeballs every day.
        cameronbrown 7y ago
        Exactly. It feels like Facebook's other issues like Cambridge Analytica would've been basically ignored by the general public if the media wasn't angry with FB for dominating the attention of its audience.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      All voters can only make decisions based on the information they can find. If the information comes overwhelmingly from one source (and in this case “Facebook” counts as such for the average voter), then it is imperative that said source represents reality, not propaganda. It is impossible for even the smartest voter to do better by the power of reason alone. Reason isn’t magic.
- mikeash 7y ago
  I don’t see what's unreasonable about a legislature compelling the appearance of a CEO that operates in their country. If it’s logistically impossible for a large multinational operating in many countries to comply, then maybe its unreasonable for a single company to operate in so many countries. There’s such a weird sense of entitlement here, that companies should be able to do what they want and countries need to accommodate them. There’s nothing that says it must be easy or even possible to operate a company in every country in the world simultaneously. I see no need to draw any lines. If you don’t want to be subject to a particular country’s rules, there is a really easy solution: don’t operate there.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    IMO, it depends whether the law is just and reasonable. I do not think any just or reasonable purpose is served better by having Zuckerberg or Sandberg attend this meeting, as opposed to their lieutenants. No questions will be asked that the lieutenants would not be equally or better equipped to answer. If such questions need to be asked, a letter and response would be fine. If the purpose of the meeting were more than a show trial, I might feel different. But, that is universally not the case. FWIW I would not be offended if Zuckerberg declined invitations from the US congress either, although it's difficult for him to do so considering they could actually arrest him.
    - edoceo 7y ago
      > I do not think But, the Canadian government thinks it. They don't just call up folks on whim. Cost of doing business for FB. CEO gotta do CEO things, which includes the occasional inconvenience of answering a few questions from the Government.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
        > But, the Canadian government thinks it. ... CEO gotta do CEO things ... Apparently he doesn't, though. What the Canadian government thinks matters only to the degree that they have the power to compel their desired behavior, and the will to use that power. Also, I contend the Canadian government doesn't think there's a just purpose in him showing up. Whether any of the politicians will admit it, I'm sure they are aware that no productive purpose will be served by Zuckerberg's attendance, besides their own political self-aggrandizement. They do not need his input on any proposed policy. They don't need information from him that cannot equally well be acquired from a lieutenant or through a letter. To be clear, I'm not saying these politicians are corrupt or anything. They are doing what is rational from their perspectives. Scoring points against Zuckerberg is a win, since a few constituents would really like it and anyone else won't care either way. But rational, goal-seeking behavior and just behavior are often different things. On the other hand, Zuckerberg is also doing what is rational from his perspective. To give in to this request would probably cost him dearly in time going forward as every politician in the world looking for a distraction would be knocking at his door. Like us all, he has a limited amount of time on this Earth. I doubt he has much desire to spend it as a whipping boy for foreign governments, and so he cannot accede to the request unless Canada ups the ante.
- HenryBemis 7y ago
  This is not some small business making minim salaries for the owners. Not your typical corner store who's owners cannot afford the tickets. How fun it would be if all 10 countries block Facebook for a couple of years, now THAT would be fun!! That would teach these thugs a lesson or two about 'corporate responsibility'.
  - bin0 7y ago
    Not sure that this would be legal in many countries. Not showing up is not a crime. Besides, were I Facebook, I would put my best men to work on anti-censorship technology posthaste. Airlift in slips of paper with tor bridges written on them; I don't care. They would figure something out.
    - HenryBemis 7y ago
      No it is not. So the law-makers should pass a law that says: " when you do business in this country, we pay for your ticket and your time and you bring your a$$ over when we ring the bell, or else you a) better be in a hospital sick as hell so we justify the absence, or b) we shut your business down until you show your face". These thugs should be held accountable. Giving BS excuses about "oh we dropped the ball on the last 10 elections" doesn't cut it. Maybe some citizens are to meek or irresponsible or ignorant; this doesn't mean that these thugs should get a pass.
- vkou 7y ago
  > On the other hand, a multinational company can't be expected to fly its CEO to a legislative hearing in every country where it operates... you could spend an entire year doing that instead of actually running your company. You don't get called out for a legislative hearing for running a company. You get called out for a legislative hearing when you are running your company poorly, and in opposition to public welfare. If he doesn't want to meet the legal obligations for operating in Canada, Mark is more then welcome to close up shop.
  - xxs 7y ago
    >Mark is more then welcome to close up shop. Still, he might need to pay fines.
  - bin0 7y ago
    Let's say he takes you up on that: * closes all canadian offices * shuts down all canadian datacenters * moves everything back to America What will canadians do? Easy, keep using Facebook with slightly higher latency. He'll put up a bunch of servers right across the border; done. Unless canada wants to pull a China and start censoring the traffic of her citizens, she'd be out of options.
    - vkou 7y ago
      He will do all that and give up billions in sunk costs and revenue because he can't be bothered to show up to a parliamentary hearing? His board will destroy him. Letting 'jobmakers' hold jobs hostage over their incompliance with the law is like negotiating with a terrorist. It opens the door for others to extort you, and the only correct move is to not do it.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  how many days of this last year has Zuckerberg been appearing at hearings, I'm sure it sounds like a lot but I bet if we count up the amount it wouldn't seem like near an unreasonable burden yet. Aside from that if any company should be able to have it's CEO work remotely Facebook should, so year he will spend some hours in a hearing, and then answer his email.
- paulcole 7y ago
  If every country you operate in is subpoenaing you, then maybe it’s time to reevaluate how you run your company?
- monkeydreams 7y ago
  One of the roles of the CEO is to be the "public face" of the company. This is literally "the public" requiring Facebook to explain themselves. Demanding that a CEO face up to public scrutiny of a company's operations is well on this side of the line. If companies want to be treated as citizens they must, periodically, offer up a pair of wrists to be cuffed.
- ta34729384 7y ago
  > Lawmakers from at least ten countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia, are expected to attend the meeting, which is the second of its kind. Yep, totally unreasonable to make Americans leave America.
- drivebycomment 7y ago
  From the article: > Both executives received formal requests from the Canadian Parliament earlier this month tied to a gathering of an international committee examining Silicon Valley's impact on privacy and democracy....Lawmakers from at least ten countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia, are expected to attend the meeting, which is the second of its kind. The meeting of an international committee of lawmakers, without any specific tie to an international body, has to be an informational one, and such a meeting does not need a CEO. In fact, you actually don't want the CEO but the actual experts. So by calling out Zuckerberg, those lawmakers are implicitly declaring that they want this meeting to be a dog-and-pony show of political theater, not an actually useful meeting. This sounds like some Canadian politician is huffing and puffing about Zuck not helping them look good when they are hosting some event. I'm not at all surprised Facebook doesn't want any of it, and I wouldn't be surprised that the threat of contempt vote is a complete bluff and won't go anywhere.
  - M2Ys4U 7y ago
    Also from the article: >Their presence is important, he said, because, "Knowing the structure of Facebook and how it is micro-managed right from the top, any change on the platform is done through Mr. Zuckerberg or through Ms. Sandberg."
  - bin0 7y ago
    You hit the nail on the head here. The canadians are doing the same thing the American Congress did recently: pulling in the big bad zuck for a stern talking-to. Notice that they passed no laws. It's televised political theater of the kind we have seen ever since C-Span showed up.
- jaredklewis 7y ago
  All good points. Probably just the bitter American in me speaking, but if Canada is anything like the US, the hearing will be 100% optics, 0% substance. All the politicians will want to be seen asking tough questions and then–once the public flogging is over–will return to their regularly scheduled program of doing fuck all. As cathartic as it would be to see another grilling of Zuckerberg, it's hard to get too worked up that he's sending his understudy. Same song and dance either way.
- lazugod 7y ago
  > Where do you draw the line? It seems pretty reasonable for the CEO to show up to hearings for the country where your company is headquartered... but to send lieutenants everywhere else, no? What is the precedent in this case? I assume Facebook is not the only multinational corporation to ever exist or be called to testify to foreign congresses. What have other corporations done?
- pulse7 7y ago
  If Facebook operates in Canada it must: 1) either have there a subsidiary and a CEO of that subsidiary would represent a company in this case or 2) the CEO of a multinational company needs to go there and represent a company.
- tus87 7y ago
  Do they operate in Canada though?
  - tpm 7y ago
    Do they accept money from Canadian customers and show ads to Canadian users?
- M2Ys4U 7y ago
  >On the other hand, a multinational company can't be expected to fly its CEO to a legislative hearing in every country where it operates... Yes, yes it should be expected to do that.
- StreamBright 7y ago
  I think Zuckerberg has both the financial means and the time to fly to every country where he operates. Not all the countries requested hearings so the number of countries he needs to show up is probably less than the number of countries he visits on pleasure trips.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 7y ago
  Then Facebook shouldn’t do business in that country. It’s really simple. Corporations and their executives should not be exempt from governments, especially democratically elected ones.
- OrgNet 7y ago
  > It's just straight-up logistically impossible yes, Facebook should probably get sued daily seeing the way it is acting so that they can suffer the consequences of its actions... If that isn't possible, maybe jail is the only option.
gruez 7y ago
>The decision could result in the executives being held in contempt of parliament So worst case, they can't enter canada anymore? I find it unlikely that they'd get cut out of the canadian market because of it.
- xyzzy_plugh 7y ago
  It's an international committee, likely just leaves an even more sour taste in the mouths of international governments.
- SapporoChris 7y ago
  Okay, I never have used Facebook so perhaps I am missing something. Quite probable. However, I humbly disagree, you hinted at the answer. Yes, worse case is Canada and other markets begin blocking Facebook. What value does Facebook add to Canada or any market. Advertising? Advertising is a zero sum game. If Facebook disappears there's no advertising loss in the market, other agencies will take over.
  - devoply 7y ago
    If facebook disappeared from those 10 countries what difference would it make to the citizens of those countries? Not very much. Other local services would pop up to take its place and replicate its functionality. I don't think Facebook pays much tax to these countries either, so a local replacement would create greater amounts of tax revenue as well as jobs for their citizens. Considering how large a political and security risk Facebook is, I don't understand why any country would allow this sort of service to operate outside its borders without oversight.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      You underestimate the disruption the banning of Facebook would have. It really isn't easy to replace a service where the main attraction is the people using the service. It'll take years for anything considerable to pop up even if the alternative is ready the moment Facebook closes.
waldowashere 7y ago
fuck these jews
CosmicShadow 7y ago
"Right now we're focused on engaging in meaningful dialogue with the committee and look forward to answering their questions." ...but we aren't going to send over the people you asked for and the only ones that really matter for this kind of thing... I hope they get held in contempt and banned from the country, maybe others will follow suit. It feels like an insult, it's not like it's that far, and there will be many countries there. I know they don't give a shit unless it's the US and that makes it even worse. Frustrating to see them untouchable and with no shits given. No accountability, no responsibility.
paxys 7y ago
I'm on Zuck's side here. Complying will set a precedent that any country in the world can summon him for any or no reason just to score some political points (which is exactly what the US and EU hearings were). It is completely within any country's power to make and enforce laws that companies operating in their jurisdiction have to follow, so they should really start there.
- sjwright 7y ago
  I would agree with you if Facebook were only passively present in other countries by virtue of the internet being inherently global. But Facebook is a massive company with a physical presence, an enormous financial presence, and is a political presence in Canada, UK, Australia, and probably all of the G7 countries. Rupert Murdoch was obliged to front up to the UK Parliament. Zuckerberg is no less obliged here.
  - paxys 7y ago
    Sure, but you can say the same for most other countries outside the G7 as well. After Canada it would be India summoning him, then Brazil, then Israel, Turkey, Japan, Mexico and countless others. Where do you draw the line? Should flying around the world answering to politicians be his full-time job, or should he be able to actually run his company and let local executives handle such problems?
    - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
      All of those governments have the sovereignty to order him to appear. And they probably mostly lack the jurisdiction to coerced him to appear, while having the jurisdiction to impose whatever penalties they see fit for his non-appearance. Personally, I think it would be amusing if all the major countries had outstanding warrants for Mark Zuckerberg’s arrest, and imposed strict privacy regulations upon Facebook et al.
    - mpweiher 7y ago
      He is free to stop operating in those countries.
sjwright 7y ago
If Zuckerberg doesn't appear, Canada should retaliate financially by putting a tariff on Facebook ad sales from Canadian advertisers. (And they could donate 100% of the tariff revenues to some non-profit that invests in local journalism.)
- Waterluvian 7y ago
  That got me thinking. Has Canada tariffed anything that wasn't in response to tariffs?
- lstamour 7y ago
  Just like how China doesn’t pay the tariff, it’s US importers who do, in this case Facebook doesn’t pay the tariff, it’s Canadian advertisers that would, on top of whatever Facebook is asking for. It would only hurt Facebook if you applied a fine or tax directly to their Canadian profits or prevented them from doing business in Canada, and even then... with other countries, the sway is, “you’re a citizen of our country, you have to follow the law, it’s easier that way” but if you’re not actually a citizen, have legal defense and possible substitutions in place, and ultimately, the only penalty is likely a slap on the wrist and a request you somehow further can’t ignore, well... it comes back to other countries on their own don’t have sway if the US or host nation doesn’t make the same request and you don’t have immediate travel plans to that country (and, of course, the country follows rule of law and/or you’re protected by your host country’s legal system...) That said, anyone in the country making such a request that works for an affected company would have to follow the laws of that host country over company dictates, or face legal consequences...
  - reasonablemann 7y ago
    And Canadian advertisers might choose a cheaper alternative to FB as a result.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      Seems like a win for Canadian Facebook users as they would get to see fewer ads.
sys_64738 7y ago
Surely they could only hold their own citizens in contempt of parliament for those who work for Facebook Canada? It seems overreaching to expect a foreign CEO of a parent company not incorporated in that parliament's jurisdiction to make such a demand of Zuck.
tjpnz 7y ago
>"Right now we're focused on engaging in meaningful dialogue with the committee and look forward to answering their questions." This has got to be the most vacuous piece of bullshit I've read in a long time. They're just taking the piss at this point.
shiado 7y ago
Canada wants to defer totalitarian speech control as the responsibility of companies, but as long as Canadians can connect to servers outside of Canada, the government will not get their wish. If they were serious about censoring the internet they would go full China and build a great maple firewall.
Causality1 7y ago
Facebook has no datacenters in Canada. Canada has no more legal authority over Facebook's activities than Kim John Un or Ronald McDonald does.
- anoncake 7y ago
  Of course Canada has the legal authority over Facebook's activities in Canada. Facebook not having any datacenters there just makes enforcement slightly harder.
  - tus87 7y ago
    What activities do they do in Canada?
    - hulahoof 7y ago
      Provide advertising services, which I'm sure they happily exchange for $CAD
      - Causality1 7y ago
        Arguably that's Canadian companies doing business in America, not the other way around.
        anoncake 7y ago
        Either way, Canada has jurisdiction.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- xxs 7y ago
  They do sell to Canadian companies, hence they are presented there.
- Veen 7y ago
Traster 7y ago
People seem to be freaking out at the idea that companies can be subpoena'd by the governments of countries they operate in. What do you expect? That you can just sell your products in another country and not be answerable to their government? Do people realise this is basically an imperialist attitude? Here's a tip: If you don't want to appear before dozens of government investigations, don't conduct dodgy business practices in hundreds of jurisdictions. I would totally support putting various restrictions on Facebooks operations until Zuckerberg shows. Barring Facebook from storing any personal data on any Canadian citizen until it is in compliance with Canadian law.
- StreamBright 7y ago
  Well I think the governments are not doing enough to stop Facebook. EU just passed GDPR last year but still, based on recent developments (like the Crossfit case) it should be obvious to everybody that FB is damaging to society on many levels. I would go even further with government actions and start to block their IP ranges on the national level.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    So mass censorship, then?
    - StreamBright 7y ago
      Why do you think that blocking Facebook is censorship? You are not blocking a particular book or post, you are blocking a company that disregards privacy many ways, filtering the internet according their internal policy that is not accessible to the outside world while selling user data to the highest bidder.
      - cameronbrown 7y ago
        Why do you think blocking [Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc..] is censorship? Filtering the internet according China's internal policy that is not accessible to the outside world.. You see my point? It should be consumers and NOT government who decides what products and services are allowed to be used, especially with regards to information. Transparency regulations I can get behind but mass blocking is fundamentally wrong - it takes power out of the hands of regular people. The government shouldn't have that power to begin with in my opinion.
CosmicShadow 7y ago
I can understand from a business perspective why FB would not want to bother sending their top 2 folks, and the doors it would open up and how they can just get away with it to deal with more "important" things. This is discussed in many comments. From a personal perspective, and as a Canadian, I know the shit FB is pulling and the damages it is creating and can create and I feel powerless to stop it or make a difference. The best I could really hope to achieve as just some person is to petition my government to do something about it, and it would probably at best lead to something like a meeting with the most accountable people. I'm lucky in that they are already trying to do this, in conjunction with 9 other countries, so hooray! Do I know that this may be useless or go nowhere, yes, could I really hope to get much more than this on my own, no. So it feels to me like this is our first step to making a difference or at least trying, and they still have the audacity to say "nah dawg, talk to these nobodies instead, but we are totally committed". As a person I'm really pissed and insulted. It says my best efforts real or imagined, are pointless and useless. It says I don't give a fuck about you or anyone in your Country/ies. It says you can work as hard as you want to rally people, 450M angry I's who just want answers and to see someone held accountable and at least show up to defend their actions, and you still don't care and will just deny them. It says nobody matters but us, get used to it you pleebs. It says that even when your COUNTRY is trying to stand up for you, even with all their power and clout can't get you to show up for a fucking meeting next door with 10 other countries, it says WOW, who do these people think they are, how dare you defy my highest body's request? How do you think I am going to feel about you after that? If there was an oil spill or something like that, you'd see the CEO talking about it in front of the government on every news station, it's the job of the most accountable person to own up or at least show up and lie through their teeth or avoid questions like the plague, but they aren't even willing. I hope they get in deep shit and we take much harsher measures faster because of their non-cooperation. Maybe that seems like a bit of a rant and it's more about feelings, but they are still valid and probably represent how a lot of people also feel. A lot of us have businesses, and we can see from both lenses, but we still have no power compared to them and we still have to live with them, and while we don't want to say things that could turn around and fuck us over if we ever get in that situation, but I guess shame on you if you do, so it doesn't really matter anyway. * apologies to the "nobodies", you aren't nobody, but you aren't who we want.
brandon272 7y ago
Just a reminder that this isn't just Canada, it's an international committee representing countries totalling half a billion citizens. There's no question that Facebook does business in Canada or any of the other countries in question. Facebook is international and has set up satellite offices around the globe in order to have a presence in these countries. It was my understanding that their growth in these regions and others was hugely important to them. I think this goes beyond the logistics of "is it reasonable for a CEO to bother meeting with legislators in every country in which it does business" and is a matter of whether Facebook is going to be answerable at all internationally, and what the optics look like of an American company doing business in other nations where it will not make top level executives available to answer important questions. Does this mean that Facebook simply won't make its top level executives available to any other country? Is there a population threshold? Will Zuckerberg or Sandberg only meet with Presidents/Vice-Presidents, etc? I can't help but feel like Facebook is held to a hugely different standard in these cases. I don't think people would think twice about expecting Mary Barra, for example, to travel to Canada to be answerable about GM vehicles being sold into Canadian territory if Canadian officials had concerns. It also seems plain as day to me that Facebook's top brass simply do not want to answer these questions. They would rather send representatives to face the tough questions on their behalf, which are problematic on their own, leading to troubling and unsatisfying public exchanges [1]. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4cBp5DfZc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4cBp5DfZc

On the one hand, yes companies should be held accountable to governments everywhere they operate, of course. On the other hand, a multinational company can't be expected to fly its CEO to a legislative hearing in every country where it operates... you could spend an entire year doing that instead of actually running your company. It's just straight-up logistically impossible, a legitimately unreasonable burden. And if a government legitimately just needs information as opposed to just optics, they don't need the CEO anyways. Where do you draw the line? It seems pretty reasonable for the CEO to show up to hearings for the country where your company is headquartered... but to send lieutenants everywhere else, no?

Tyrek 7y ago
It seems equally reasonable to withdraw from doing business in countries where you can't bother to show up for a hearing. Where do you draw the line?
- crazygringo 7y ago
  > Facebook said is it sending Kevin Chan, its head of public policy for Facebook Canada, and Neil Potts, its director of public policy, to the meeting instead. They're sending multiple people, just not the CEO. It's logistically impossible for a CEO to be in every country at every government's whim, and also run their company. Shouldn't a company be allowed to choose who represents it legally?
  - CosmicShadow 7y ago
    If you had to make a list of things that you'd think a CEO would be responsible for, this sure seems like one of them. If they've got enough people to send in their place, then they also have enough people to run the company while they do the things like this. It's not like it's just any country's whim, it's a group of G7 countries conveniently meeting next door. If every single little country was calling on them all the time, then yeah maybe, but this seems like one of those "pick and choose" situation where you should send the CEO and Founder.
    - sjburt 7y ago
      Is there any chance that Zuckerberg (or his subordinate) will say anything that everyone doesn't already know? What is the point of him appearing exactly?
      - meddlepal 7y ago
        Politicians are looking for a soundbite and to humiliate him.
        sleepybrett 7y ago
        He should already be humiliated, the fact that he isn't is very disturbing.
      - daniel-cussen 7y ago
        Yeah like when Zuckerberg told senator Leahy, he'd get back to him about the issue he was being asked about. It'd be the perfect chance to finally answer that question.
      - cookiecaper 7y ago
        > What is the point of him appearing exactly? Zuckerberg makes great fodder for Bad Lip Reading. :) [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zCDvOsdL9Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zCDvOsdL9Q
      - labster 7y ago
        The potential, albeit unlikely, that questioning Zuck causes him to feel the smallest iota of shame for his actions in destabilizing democracy.
    - bin0 7y ago
      > If every single little country was calling on them all the time, then yeah maybe, but this seems like one of those "pick and choose" situation where you should send the CEO and Founder. So legal authority is determined by the size of the nation? Or the number? They either can or cannot compel him to do so, regardless of size or number.
  - jammygit 7y ago
    Facebook famously answers in scenarios like this “I’m not sure” in order to avoid answering questions. It is not sufficient for a lackey to go considering this.
  - atonse 7y ago
    A CEO who flies a private jet with great connectivity can't take a day to make a 4 hour flight (where he can continue to work and take calls) to show up? What are you worried about? He's going to be stuck in lines all day and won't be able to work on the plane because he didn't want to buy airplane wifi? If there's anyone who will simply not be disrupted AT ALL by this kind of visit, it's the CEO of a $500bn company who has the resources of a small nation at his disposal. Hell, it's even practically the same time zone.
nearbuy 7y ago
I tend to agree, but in this case it's a meeting of 10 countries representing 450 million people.
- tjpnz 7y ago
  And they had no issue fronting in the US. Clearly the opinions from representatives to those countries are worth less in their eyes.
- pfarnsworth 7y ago
  Did they send the leaders of those 10 countries, or just the representatives?
  - spinach 7y ago
    Are you seriously trying to equate the CEO of Facebook to 10 heads of state? Just how high of a pedestal do you put FB on?
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      I’m sure if Heads of State were in attendance Zuckerberg would be delighted to attend. As it is he has nothing to gain from attending a civil servants ego stroking summit. It’s not about what other people think of Zuckerberg, it’s what he thinks because he can do it. The Canadian government is not going to try and prosecute him or shut down Facebook.
      - rudiv 7y ago
        Do civil servants frequently serve in parliament where you're from? In my country, you're proscribed from running in any significant elections (state legislature/national legislature) if you're a serving civil servant. I may be wrong, but I presumed that was the case more places than not. I know that it is the case in Britain, which may be relevant to Canada. (An office of profit under the crown disqualifies one from parliament).
    - 7y ago
bassman9000 7y ago
Where do you draw the line? At the point in which you have 1B+ users, access to mind-boggling quantities of information about them, and unprecedented power over elections.
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  If we think Facebook has "power" over elections, let's just give up on democracy, honestly. That's abdicating any responsibility voters have for their own votes.
  - brlewis 7y ago
    I do think big media have a lot of power to influence elections, but I'm not ready to give up on democracy yet. Also, it's only possible for me to abdicate the responsibility of one voter, not all of us.
    - pferde 7y ago
      Big media has always had a lot of power to influence election. This is mostly about FB being the new kid on this block, and traditional big media not liking it, and firing at FB from all barrels. I do not like Facebook at all, but I can recognize a sustained media smear campaign when it's smacking me in the eyeballs every day.
      - cameronbrown 7y ago
        Exactly. It feels like Facebook's other issues like Cambridge Analytica would've been basically ignored by the general public if the media wasn't angry with FB for dominating the attention of its audience.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    All voters can only make decisions based on the information they can find. If the information comes overwhelmingly from one source (and in this case “Facebook” counts as such for the average voter), then it is imperative that said source represents reality, not propaganda. It is impossible for even the smartest voter to do better by the power of reason alone. Reason isn’t magic.
mikeash 7y ago
I don’t see what's unreasonable about a legislature compelling the appearance of a CEO that operates in their country. If it’s logistically impossible for a large multinational operating in many countries to comply, then maybe its unreasonable for a single company to operate in so many countries. There’s such a weird sense of entitlement here, that companies should be able to do what they want and countries need to accommodate them. There’s nothing that says it must be easy or even possible to operate a company in every country in the world simultaneously. I see no need to draw any lines. If you don’t want to be subject to a particular country’s rules, there is a really easy solution: don’t operate there.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  IMO, it depends whether the law is just and reasonable. I do not think any just or reasonable purpose is served better by having Zuckerberg or Sandberg attend this meeting, as opposed to their lieutenants. No questions will be asked that the lieutenants would not be equally or better equipped to answer. If such questions need to be asked, a letter and response would be fine. If the purpose of the meeting were more than a show trial, I might feel different. But, that is universally not the case. FWIW I would not be offended if Zuckerberg declined invitations from the US congress either, although it's difficult for him to do so considering they could actually arrest him.
  - edoceo 7y ago
    > I do not think But, the Canadian government thinks it. They don't just call up folks on whim. Cost of doing business for FB. CEO gotta do CEO things, which includes the occasional inconvenience of answering a few questions from the Government.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
      > But, the Canadian government thinks it. ... CEO gotta do CEO things ... Apparently he doesn't, though. What the Canadian government thinks matters only to the degree that they have the power to compel their desired behavior, and the will to use that power. Also, I contend the Canadian government doesn't think there's a just purpose in him showing up. Whether any of the politicians will admit it, I'm sure they are aware that no productive purpose will be served by Zuckerberg's attendance, besides their own political self-aggrandizement. They do not need his input on any proposed policy. They don't need information from him that cannot equally well be acquired from a lieutenant or through a letter. To be clear, I'm not saying these politicians are corrupt or anything. They are doing what is rational from their perspectives. Scoring points against Zuckerberg is a win, since a few constituents would really like it and anyone else won't care either way. But rational, goal-seeking behavior and just behavior are often different things. On the other hand, Zuckerberg is also doing what is rational from his perspective. To give in to this request would probably cost him dearly in time going forward as every politician in the world looking for a distraction would be knocking at his door. Like us all, he has a limited amount of time on this Earth. I doubt he has much desire to spend it as a whipping boy for foreign governments, and so he cannot accede to the request unless Canada ups the ante.
HenryBemis 7y ago
This is not some small business making minim salaries for the owners. Not your typical corner store who's owners cannot afford the tickets. How fun it would be if all 10 countries block Facebook for a couple of years, now THAT would be fun!! That would teach these thugs a lesson or two about 'corporate responsibility'.
- bin0 7y ago
  Not sure that this would be legal in many countries. Not showing up is not a crime. Besides, were I Facebook, I would put my best men to work on anti-censorship technology posthaste. Airlift in slips of paper with tor bridges written on them; I don't care. They would figure something out.
  - HenryBemis 7y ago
    No it is not. So the law-makers should pass a law that says: " when you do business in this country, we pay for your ticket and your time and you bring your a$$ over when we ring the bell, or else you a) better be in a hospital sick as hell so we justify the absence, or b) we shut your business down until you show your face". These thugs should be held accountable. Giving BS excuses about "oh we dropped the ball on the last 10 elections" doesn't cut it. Maybe some citizens are to meek or irresponsible or ignorant; this doesn't mean that these thugs should get a pass.
vkou 7y ago
> On the other hand, a multinational company can't be expected to fly its CEO to a legislative hearing in every country where it operates... you could spend an entire year doing that instead of actually running your company. You don't get called out for a legislative hearing for running a company. You get called out for a legislative hearing when you are running your company poorly, and in opposition to public welfare. If he doesn't want to meet the legal obligations for operating in Canada, Mark is more then welcome to close up shop.
- xxs 7y ago
  >Mark is more then welcome to close up shop. Still, he might need to pay fines.
- bin0 7y ago
  Let's say he takes you up on that: * closes all canadian offices * shuts down all canadian datacenters * moves everything back to America What will canadians do? Easy, keep using Facebook with slightly higher latency. He'll put up a bunch of servers right across the border; done. Unless canada wants to pull a China and start censoring the traffic of her citizens, she'd be out of options.
  - vkou 7y ago
    He will do all that and give up billions in sunk costs and revenue because he can't be bothered to show up to a parliamentary hearing? His board will destroy him. Letting 'jobmakers' hold jobs hostage over their incompliance with the law is like negotiating with a terrorist. It opens the door for others to extort you, and the only correct move is to not do it.
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
how many days of this last year has Zuckerberg been appearing at hearings, I'm sure it sounds like a lot but I bet if we count up the amount it wouldn't seem like near an unreasonable burden yet. Aside from that if any company should be able to have it's CEO work remotely Facebook should, so year he will spend some hours in a hearing, and then answer his email.
paulcole 7y ago
If every country you operate in is subpoenaing you, then maybe it’s time to reevaluate how you run your company?
monkeydreams 7y ago
One of the roles of the CEO is to be the "public face" of the company. This is literally "the public" requiring Facebook to explain themselves. Demanding that a CEO face up to public scrutiny of a company's operations is well on this side of the line. If companies want to be treated as citizens they must, periodically, offer up a pair of wrists to be cuffed.
ta34729384 7y ago
> Lawmakers from at least ten countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia, are expected to attend the meeting, which is the second of its kind. Yep, totally unreasonable to make Americans leave America.
drivebycomment 7y ago
From the article: > Both executives received formal requests from the Canadian Parliament earlier this month tied to a gathering of an international committee examining Silicon Valley's impact on privacy and democracy....Lawmakers from at least ten countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia, are expected to attend the meeting, which is the second of its kind. The meeting of an international committee of lawmakers, without any specific tie to an international body, has to be an informational one, and such a meeting does not need a CEO. In fact, you actually don't want the CEO but the actual experts. So by calling out Zuckerberg, those lawmakers are implicitly declaring that they want this meeting to be a dog-and-pony show of political theater, not an actually useful meeting. This sounds like some Canadian politician is huffing and puffing about Zuck not helping them look good when they are hosting some event. I'm not at all surprised Facebook doesn't want any of it, and I wouldn't be surprised that the threat of contempt vote is a complete bluff and won't go anywhere.
- M2Ys4U 7y ago
  Also from the article: >Their presence is important, he said, because, "Knowing the structure of Facebook and how it is micro-managed right from the top, any change on the platform is done through Mr. Zuckerberg or through Ms. Sandberg."
- bin0 7y ago
  You hit the nail on the head here. The canadians are doing the same thing the American Congress did recently: pulling in the big bad zuck for a stern talking-to. Notice that they passed no laws. It's televised political theater of the kind we have seen ever since C-Span showed up.
jaredklewis 7y ago
All good points. Probably just the bitter American in me speaking, but if Canada is anything like the US, the hearing will be 100% optics, 0% substance. All the politicians will want to be seen asking tough questions and then–once the public flogging is over–will return to their regularly scheduled program of doing fuck all. As cathartic as it would be to see another grilling of Zuckerberg, it's hard to get too worked up that he's sending his understudy. Same song and dance either way.
lazugod 7y ago
> Where do you draw the line? It seems pretty reasonable for the CEO to show up to hearings for the country where your company is headquartered... but to send lieutenants everywhere else, no? What is the precedent in this case? I assume Facebook is not the only multinational corporation to ever exist or be called to testify to foreign congresses. What have other corporations done?
pulse7 7y ago
If Facebook operates in Canada it must: 1) either have there a subsidiary and a CEO of that subsidiary would represent a company in this case or 2) the CEO of a multinational company needs to go there and represent a company.
tus87 7y ago
Do they operate in Canada though?
- tpm 7y ago
  Do they accept money from Canadian customers and show ads to Canadian users?
M2Ys4U 7y ago
>On the other hand, a multinational company can't be expected to fly its CEO to a legislative hearing in every country where it operates... Yes, yes it should be expected to do that.
StreamBright 7y ago
I think Zuckerberg has both the financial means and the time to fly to every country where he operates. Not all the countries requested hearings so the number of countries he needs to show up is probably less than the number of countries he visits on pleasure trips.
eeeeeeeeeeeee 7y ago
Then Facebook shouldn’t do business in that country. It’s really simple. Corporations and their executives should not be exempt from governments, especially democratically elected ones.
OrgNet 7y ago
> It's just straight-up logistically impossible yes, Facebook should probably get sued daily seeing the way it is acting so that they can suffer the consequences of its actions... If that isn't possible, maybe jail is the only option.

gruez 7y ago

>The decision could result in the executives being held in contempt of parliament So worst case, they can't enter canada anymore? I find it unlikely that they'd get cut out of the canadian market because of it.

xyzzy_plugh 7y ago
It's an international committee, likely just leaves an even more sour taste in the mouths of international governments.
SapporoChris 7y ago
Okay, I never have used Facebook so perhaps I am missing something. Quite probable. However, I humbly disagree, you hinted at the answer. Yes, worse case is Canada and other markets begin blocking Facebook. What value does Facebook add to Canada or any market. Advertising? Advertising is a zero sum game. If Facebook disappears there's no advertising loss in the market, other agencies will take over.
- devoply 7y ago
  If facebook disappeared from those 10 countries what difference would it make to the citizens of those countries? Not very much. Other local services would pop up to take its place and replicate its functionality. I don't think Facebook pays much tax to these countries either, so a local replacement would create greater amounts of tax revenue as well as jobs for their citizens. Considering how large a political and security risk Facebook is, I don't understand why any country would allow this sort of service to operate outside its borders without oversight.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    You underestimate the disruption the banning of Facebook would have. It really isn't easy to replace a service where the main attraction is the people using the service. It'll take years for anything considerable to pop up even if the alternative is ready the moment Facebook closes.

waldowashere 7y ago

fuck these jews

CosmicShadow 7y ago

"Right now we're focused on engaging in meaningful dialogue with the committee and look forward to answering their questions." ...but we aren't going to send over the people you asked for and the only ones that really matter for this kind of thing... I hope they get held in contempt and banned from the country, maybe others will follow suit. It feels like an insult, it's not like it's that far, and there will be many countries there. I know they don't give a shit unless it's the US and that makes it even worse. Frustrating to see them untouchable and with no shits given. No accountability, no responsibility.

paxys 7y ago

I'm on Zuck's side here. Complying will set a precedent that any country in the world can summon him for any or no reason just to score some political points (which is exactly what the US and EU hearings were). It is completely within any country's power to make and enforce laws that companies operating in their jurisdiction have to follow, so they should really start there.

sjwright 7y ago
I would agree with you if Facebook were only passively present in other countries by virtue of the internet being inherently global. But Facebook is a massive company with a physical presence, an enormous financial presence, and is a political presence in Canada, UK, Australia, and probably all of the G7 countries. Rupert Murdoch was obliged to front up to the UK Parliament. Zuckerberg is no less obliged here.
- paxys 7y ago
  Sure, but you can say the same for most other countries outside the G7 as well. After Canada it would be India summoning him, then Brazil, then Israel, Turkey, Japan, Mexico and countless others. Where do you draw the line? Should flying around the world answering to politicians be his full-time job, or should he be able to actually run his company and let local executives handle such problems?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
    All of those governments have the sovereignty to order him to appear. And they probably mostly lack the jurisdiction to coerced him to appear, while having the jurisdiction to impose whatever penalties they see fit for his non-appearance. Personally, I think it would be amusing if all the major countries had outstanding warrants for Mark Zuckerberg’s arrest, and imposed strict privacy regulations upon Facebook et al.
  - mpweiher 7y ago
    He is free to stop operating in those countries.

sjwright 7y ago

If Zuckerberg doesn't appear, Canada should retaliate financially by putting a tariff on Facebook ad sales from Canadian advertisers. (And they could donate 100% of the tariff revenues to some non-profit that invests in local journalism.)

Waterluvian 7y ago
That got me thinking. Has Canada tariffed anything that wasn't in response to tariffs?
lstamour 7y ago
Just like how China doesn’t pay the tariff, it’s US importers who do, in this case Facebook doesn’t pay the tariff, it’s Canadian advertisers that would, on top of whatever Facebook is asking for. It would only hurt Facebook if you applied a fine or tax directly to their Canadian profits or prevented them from doing business in Canada, and even then... with other countries, the sway is, “you’re a citizen of our country, you have to follow the law, it’s easier that way” but if you’re not actually a citizen, have legal defense and possible substitutions in place, and ultimately, the only penalty is likely a slap on the wrist and a request you somehow further can’t ignore, well... it comes back to other countries on their own don’t have sway if the US or host nation doesn’t make the same request and you don’t have immediate travel plans to that country (and, of course, the country follows rule of law and/or you’re protected by your host country’s legal system...) That said, anyone in the country making such a request that works for an affected company would have to follow the laws of that host country over company dictates, or face legal consequences...
- reasonablemann 7y ago
  And Canadian advertisers might choose a cheaper alternative to FB as a result.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Seems like a win for Canadian Facebook users as they would get to see fewer ads.

sys_64738 7y ago

Surely they could only hold their own citizens in contempt of parliament for those who work for Facebook Canada? It seems overreaching to expect a foreign CEO of a parent company not incorporated in that parliament's jurisdiction to make such a demand of Zuck.

tjpnz 7y ago

>"Right now we're focused on engaging in meaningful dialogue with the committee and look forward to answering their questions." This has got to be the most vacuous piece of bullshit I've read in a long time. They're just taking the piss at this point.

shiado 7y ago

Canada wants to defer totalitarian speech control as the responsibility of companies, but as long as Canadians can connect to servers outside of Canada, the government will not get their wish. If they were serious about censoring the internet they would go full China and build a great maple firewall.

Causality1 7y ago

Facebook has no datacenters in Canada. Canada has no more legal authority over Facebook's activities than Kim John Un or Ronald McDonald does.

anoncake 7y ago
Of course Canada has the legal authority over Facebook's activities in Canada. Facebook not having any datacenters there just makes enforcement slightly harder.
- tus87 7y ago
  What activities do they do in Canada?
  - hulahoof 7y ago
    Provide advertising services, which I'm sure they happily exchange for $CAD
    - Causality1 7y ago
      Arguably that's Canadian companies doing business in America, not the other way around.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        Either way, Canada has jurisdiction.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
xxs 7y ago
They do sell to Canadian companies, hence they are presented there.
Veen 7y ago

Traster 7y ago

People seem to be freaking out at the idea that companies can be subpoena'd by the governments of countries they operate in. What do you expect? That you can just sell your products in another country and not be answerable to their government? Do people realise this is basically an imperialist attitude? Here's a tip: If you don't want to appear before dozens of government investigations, don't conduct dodgy business practices in hundreds of jurisdictions. I would totally support putting various restrictions on Facebooks operations until Zuckerberg shows. Barring Facebook from storing any personal data on any Canadian citizen until it is in compliance with Canadian law.

StreamBright 7y ago
Well I think the governments are not doing enough to stop Facebook. EU just passed GDPR last year but still, based on recent developments (like the Crossfit case) it should be obvious to everybody that FB is damaging to society on many levels. I would go even further with government actions and start to block their IP ranges on the national level.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  So mass censorship, then?
  - StreamBright 7y ago
    Why do you think that blocking Facebook is censorship? You are not blocking a particular book or post, you are blocking a company that disregards privacy many ways, filtering the internet according their internal policy that is not accessible to the outside world while selling user data to the highest bidder.
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      Why do you think blocking [Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc..] is censorship? Filtering the internet according China's internal policy that is not accessible to the outside world.. You see my point? It should be consumers and NOT government who decides what products and services are allowed to be used, especially with regards to information. Transparency regulations I can get behind but mass blocking is fundamentally wrong - it takes power out of the hands of regular people. The government shouldn't have that power to begin with in my opinion.

CosmicShadow 7y ago

I can understand from a business perspective why FB would not want to bother sending their top 2 folks, and the doors it would open up and how they can just get away with it to deal with more "important" things. This is discussed in many comments. From a personal perspective, and as a Canadian, I know the shit FB is pulling and the damages it is creating and can create and I feel powerless to stop it or make a difference. The best I could really hope to achieve as just some person is to petition my government to do something about it, and it would probably at best lead to something like a meeting with the most accountable people. I'm lucky in that they are already trying to do this, in conjunction with 9 other countries, so hooray! Do I know that this may be useless or go nowhere, yes, could I really hope to get much more than this on my own, no. So it feels to me like this is our first step to making a difference or at least trying, and they still have the audacity to say "nah dawg, talk to these nobodies instead, but we are totally committed". As a person I'm really pissed and insulted. It says my best efforts real or imagined, are pointless and useless. It says I don't give a fuck about you or anyone in your Country/ies. It says you can work as hard as you want to rally people, 450M angry I's who just want answers and to see someone held accountable and at least show up to defend their actions, and you still don't care and will just deny them. It says nobody matters but us, get used to it you pleebs. It says that even when your COUNTRY is trying to stand up for you, even with all their power and clout can't get you to show up for a fucking meeting next door with 10 other countries, it says WOW, who do these people think they are, how dare you defy my highest body's request? How do you think I am going to feel about you after that? If there was an oil spill or something like that, you'd see the CEO talking about it in front of the government on every news station, it's the job of the most accountable person to own up or at least show up and lie through their teeth or avoid questions like the plague, but they aren't even willing. I hope they get in deep shit and we take much harsher measures faster because of their non-cooperation. Maybe that seems like a bit of a rant and it's more about feelings, but they are still valid and probably represent how a lot of people also feel. A lot of us have businesses, and we can see from both lenses, but we still have no power compared to them and we still have to live with them, and while we don't want to say things that could turn around and fuck us over if we ever get in that situation, but I guess shame on you if you do, so it doesn't really matter anyway. * apologies to the "nobodies", you aren't nobody, but you aren't who we want.

brandon272 7y ago

Just a reminder that this isn't just Canada, it's an international committee representing countries totalling half a billion citizens. There's no question that Facebook does business in Canada or any of the other countries in question. Facebook is international and has set up satellite offices around the globe in order to have a presence in these countries. It was my understanding that their growth in these regions and others was hugely important to them. I think this goes beyond the logistics of "is it reasonable for a CEO to bother meeting with legislators in every country in which it does business" and is a matter of whether Facebook is going to be answerable at all internationally, and what the optics look like of an American company doing business in other nations where it will not make top level executives available to answer important questions. Does this mean that Facebook simply won't make its top level executives available to any other country? Is there a population threshold? Will Zuckerberg or Sandberg only meet with Presidents/Vice-Presidents, etc? I can't help but feel like Facebook is held to a hugely different standard in these cases. I don't think people would think twice about expecting Mary Barra, for example, to travel to Canada to be answerable about GM vehicles being sold into Canadian territory if Canadian officials had concerns. It also seems plain as day to me that Facebook's top brass simply do not want to answer these questions. They would rather send representatives to face the tough questions on their behalf, which are problematic on their own, leading to troubling and unsatisfying public exchanges [1]. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4cBp5DfZc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4cBp5DfZc