3 ms·

It's still irritating that Larry Page has never successfully been brought before Congress for questioning. It's arguable that the entire Alphabet/Google structu

It's still irritating that Larry Page has never successfully been brought before Congress for questioning. It's arguable that the entire Alphabet/Google structure was done in part to begin the process of isolating the founders from having to testify[1], despite being the key decisionmakers in much of Google's operations over the past decade, and still technically being in control today. Every time he's been asked for, we get someone like Pichai, or even more insultingly, Kent Walker[2]. Our nation has asked Larry Page to testify many times before, it's about time we start ordering him to. [1] https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1202294177444302849 https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1202294177444302849 [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/google-touts-election-steps-as-senate-panel-rejects-its-witness https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/google-to...

Kednicma 6y ago
You might be disappointed. Larry Page has vocal cord paralysis on both sides, and as a result, his in-person presence is not very satisfying. Moreover, Page would not have substantially more interesting testimony. For any Googler at the top, the answer to the question of "Why is Google so dominant?" is "Google's services are free and high-quality," and there's not really any extra thinking that goes into that line of thought. We shouldn't expect that Page, nor any other executive, would say something like "Yes, Doubleclick was operating fraudulently," or "Yes, we agreed with Apple to fix salaries and avoid poaching," or "Yes, we developed tools to help China commit human-rights abuses," or "Yes, we knew about Eric Schmidt's trip to see Julian Assange," or "Yes, we successfully avoided tax burdens in multiple jurisdictions." It's one thing to have strong circumstantial evidence and informally-recognized smoking guns, and another thing to expect a top executive to directly and nonchalantly incriminate themselves in front of Congress.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Obviously one would need to make any accessibility accommodations necessary including potentially a translator/someone to vocalize his words written in front of him. But we should be hearing from the man himself, present in the room, not his PR people.
  - mercer 6y ago
    I'm aware that this is not a comment that contributes much, but nonetheless: I agree. Get him present in a hearing!

Kednicma 6y ago

You might be disappointed. Larry Page has vocal cord paralysis on both sides, and as a result, his in-person presence is not very satisfying. Moreover, Page would not have substantially more interesting testimony. For any Googler at the top, the answer to the question of "Why is Google so dominant?" is "Google's services are free and high-quality," and there's not really any extra thinking that goes into that line of thought. We shouldn't expect that Page, nor any other executive, would say something like "Yes, Doubleclick was operating fraudulently," or "Yes, we agreed with Apple to fix salaries and avoid poaching," or "Yes, we developed tools to help China commit human-rights abuses," or "Yes, we knew about Eric Schmidt's trip to see Julian Assange," or "Yes, we successfully avoided tax burdens in multiple jurisdictions." It's one thing to have strong circumstantial evidence and informally-recognized smoking guns, and another thing to expect a top executive to directly and nonchalantly incriminate themselves in front of Congress.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Obviously one would need to make any accessibility accommodations necessary including potentially a translator/someone to vocalize his words written in front of him. But we should be hearing from the man himself, present in the room, not his PR people.
- mercer 6y ago
  I'm aware that this is not a comment that contributes much, but nonetheless: I agree. Get him present in a hearing!