4 ms·

A large number of these countries require country-level directors that are supposed to be accountable, or locally owned subsidiaries, etc. This is literally th

A large number of these countries require country-level directors that are supposed to be accountable, or locally owned subsidiaries, etc. This is literally the person who they would hall away in cuffs and send off to jail if they charged the corporation with a criminal act in the country, etc. Requiring that, and then not letting them send those people, is definitely stupid. Saying you have a model where someone else is accountable, and then not accepting that person as a stand-in, makes no sense. Well, except for the "we want our political theater so we can look like we care to our constituents", which this kind of thing almost always is, it makes no sense. For countries that don't, yeah, sure. Canada allows both branches and wholly owned subsidiaries. (I'm too lazy to discover which facebook is using). In the subsidiary model, the subsidiary would, in a lot of cases, have its own CEO. So if Facebook Canada is a subsidiary and has a CEO, Canada should be okay with that person testifying. If they aren't, they shouldn't be allowing this model, and only allow the branch model. (In the branch office model, i'm fine with requiring the parent CEO to testify)

hodder 7y ago
It is possible that it is Facebook that won’t allow subordinates to step in, in place of Zuck and Sandberg. I’m not saying that is what is happening. But it could be. Facebook may see the risk to be too high for anyone but Zuck and Sandberg to attend these theatres given the billion+ fines that could come from them.
- Godel_unicode 7y ago
  Given that the article is about how Facebook has decided not to send them, your hypothesis seems unlikely; they would be saying in effect that they prefer contempt charges to letting their local director talk. Or, to put another spin on it, that having their director talk is worse than doing nothing.
- Thorrez 7y ago
  >It is possible that it is Facebook that won’t allow subordinates to step in The article says that Facebook is sending subordinates: >Facebook said is it [sic] sending Kevin Chan, its head of public policy for Facebook Canada, and Neil Potts, its director of public policy, to the meeting instead.
sixplusone 7y ago
only if the subsidiary or branch has enough independence should the delegate be allowed; can the local exec stop the spying on Canadians? if not, the top guy must be grilled.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  If the subsidiary doesn't have enough autonomy, then their status as a local subsidiary should be revoked immediately. If the subsidiary is complicit in criminal activity, then they are now investigating a crime, potentially an international conspiracy, and there's already mechanisms to handle that.

hodder 7y ago

It is possible that it is Facebook that won’t allow subordinates to step in, in place of Zuck and Sandberg. I’m not saying that is what is happening. But it could be. Facebook may see the risk to be too high for anyone but Zuck and Sandberg to attend these theatres given the billion+ fines that could come from them.

Godel_unicode 7y ago
Given that the article is about how Facebook has decided not to send them, your hypothesis seems unlikely; they would be saying in effect that they prefer contempt charges to letting their local director talk. Or, to put another spin on it, that having their director talk is worse than doing nothing.
Thorrez 7y ago
>It is possible that it is Facebook that won’t allow subordinates to step in The article says that Facebook is sending subordinates: >Facebook said is it [sic] sending Kevin Chan, its head of public policy for Facebook Canada, and Neil Potts, its director of public policy, to the meeting instead.

sixplusone 7y ago

only if the subsidiary or branch has enough independence should the delegate be allowed; can the local exec stop the spying on Canadians? if not, the top guy must be grilled.

linuxftw 7y ago
If the subsidiary doesn't have enough autonomy, then their status as a local subsidiary should be revoked immediately. If the subsidiary is complicit in criminal activity, then they are now investigating a crime, potentially an international conspiracy, and there's already mechanisms to handle that.