3 ms·

IMO, it depends whether the law is just and reasonable. I'm pretty sure the legislature and judiciary of each country considers obeying their laws to be necess

IMO, it depends whether the law is just and reasonable. I'm pretty sure the legislature and judiciary of each country considers obeying their laws to be necessary, with or without your blessing. National governments don't summon the leaders of major businesses without a good reason, and many national governments don't all end up doing so at almost the same time without a good reason that spans lots of countries. If there is an issue that big, maybe it should be the CEO's top priority anyway? What you call a show trial, others might call demanding the person at the top because that way there is no deniability or passing the buck. The US might have run the Zuckerberg hearing as a show trial and had mostly token incompetent and ignorant representatives asking the questions in a format designed to be kind. That doesn't mean that other countries who want real answers to serious questions about Facebook's conduct under Zuckerberg's leadership need to do the same.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
I'm pretty sure the legislature and judiciary of each country considers obeying their laws to be necessary, with or without your blessing. I fully understand that Canada does not need my approval. Surely that's obvious. Why bring it up? The question is whether what they're doing is good. Good governance, good policy, good economics, good ethics, etc. Them having the power or authority to do it is almost totally irrelevant to that. I'll tell you what would convince me that there's some good reason, and if you know of an instance, you can let me know and I'll admit some modicum of wrong. If Canada's legislature has interrogated a famous CEO or similar figure about a popular issue, and the contents of that interrogation have led to substantially unanticipated outcomes, I would be willing to admit that I'm at least partially wrong. My priors are that that sort of thing does not happen. At least, I've never seen it happen in my own country.
- rudiv 7y ago
  Why only Canada's legislature? The parliamentary committee that summoned Zuckerberg and Sandberg represents more than just the Canadian Parliament. If one were to expand the conditions under which you feel this could be good "governance, policy, economics and ethics", you could find many cases of executive officers of publicly listed companies being summoned to testify before parliament. Philip Green comes to mind, but I'm sure there are many more - requesting testimony from corporate offices it not as unusual as you may think; I don't recall the names now, but I'm pretty sure I've seen the CEOs of some major American corporations in front of the House and Senate on numerous occasions, such as after the Great Financial Crisis. >the contents of that interrogation have led to substantially unanticipated outcomes How would one prove something like that? I think some more specificity would be necessary to be able to answer that question. Do you mean unanticipated by the mainstream of commentators, unanticipated by the legislature itself, by the corporate officer in question, by literally anyone on the Earth, or by yourself?

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

I'm pretty sure the legislature and judiciary of each country considers obeying their laws to be necessary, with or without your blessing. I fully understand that Canada does not need my approval. Surely that's obvious. Why bring it up? The question is whether what they're doing is good. Good governance, good policy, good economics, good ethics, etc. Them having the power or authority to do it is almost totally irrelevant to that. I'll tell you what would convince me that there's some good reason, and if you know of an instance, you can let me know and I'll admit some modicum of wrong. If Canada's legislature has interrogated a famous CEO or similar figure about a popular issue, and the contents of that interrogation have led to substantially unanticipated outcomes, I would be willing to admit that I'm at least partially wrong. My priors are that that sort of thing does not happen. At least, I've never seen it happen in my own country.

rudiv 7y ago
Why only Canada's legislature? The parliamentary committee that summoned Zuckerberg and Sandberg represents more than just the Canadian Parliament. If one were to expand the conditions under which you feel this could be good "governance, policy, economics and ethics", you could find many cases of executive officers of publicly listed companies being summoned to testify before parliament. Philip Green comes to mind, but I'm sure there are many more - requesting testimony from corporate offices it not as unusual as you may think; I don't recall the names now, but I'm pretty sure I've seen the CEOs of some major American corporations in front of the House and Senate on numerous occasions, such as after the Great Financial Crisis. >the contents of that interrogation have led to substantially unanticipated outcomes How would one prove something like that? I think some more specificity would be necessary to be able to answer that question. Do you mean unanticipated by the mainstream of commentators, unanticipated by the legislature itself, by the corporate officer in question, by literally anyone on the Earth, or by yourself?