Hacker News Reader

Comment by hanoz | Hacker News Reader

This was obviously never going to happen and is absolutely the right decision for Zuckerberg and Facebook. House of Commons select committees bagging a big scalp invariably turn into show trials, with MPs possessing a completely deluded sense of their own insight into a subject queuing up to play to the cameras. The spectacle of having Zuckerberg there would have been absolutely excruciating.

So, much as I'd like to see Facebook deleted from the internet, at least we'll be spared the embarrassment of the world witnessing the caliber of our elected representatives.

View on HN

Everything you've said is utterly accurate and yet I still think this is a terrible decision. We'll have to witness some hapless middle-manager undergo the same circus, but with every new person to speak we'll have a customary "I simply cannot believe Mr. Zuckerberg did not think it was important for him to be here in person!".

Having a fall guy give terrible answers looks worse than him giving terrible answers. At the very least send Sheryl Sandberg - the message they're sending out right now is that they aren't taking it seriously.

I think Brexit might be his lucky out here.

Now if he's summoned to appear before the US or EU government, skipping that I suspect would not turn out well.

Agree. It took (e.g.) Microsoft et al too long to realize - for better or worse - the significance of Washington DC. Today, the stage is international, the flow of info more freely. That is, a couple of phone calls and it's possible to mobilize the FB platform against FB itself. Extreme? Yes, but possible.

FB, sooner or later, will regret this decision.

I'm old enough to remember the 1993 Jack in the Box e. coli outbreak... and then fast-forward to Chipotle's 2015 handling of the same thing. The responses between then and now were staggering differently. Back then it was "deny, deny, deny". In today's PR conscious world - for better or worse - the people expect an immediate confession from the very top.

Given's FB's breadth and depth of exposure to many people's lives, I would expect no less than to see Zuck fielding questions in front of the cameras. It will certainly be a circus and many people will tune in to watch - but if handled correctly can bring an enormous amount of goodwill back to FB - which it desperately needs right now.

Perhaps this is a form of karma. After all, the change in how PR works today compared to last century has a lot to do with the rise of social media and 24 hour news cycles.

The irony of Zuckerberg responding to this spectacle in an entirely old-school and 20th century way, blind to how the social media landscape has changed PR.

Zuckerberg seems confident he doesn't need to really give a crap. FB will be fine either way. Why bother? He's got better things to do with his time.

Or is it more likely that he's counting on having his eggs in more baskets than just the Facebook one? I don't think he doesn't give a crap because he thinks Facebook is invincible.

IMHO, it's bluff. There's evidence to suggest that that a frank discussion would be an extreme liability for him, and for facebook.

Here's a lengthy timeline of his many publicly verified interactions with Putin's lackeys, and the financial support they have provided facebook:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/85p30j/deleteface...

Will it be fine? Stock market shaved 10 percent of it's market cap on this. I suppose if you're a $500bn or $450bn company you'll be fine either way... But this is only a week... So time will tell how far the negative press goes with this... And ultimately how many of it's 2bn users actually care.

> We'll have to witness some hapless middle-manager undergo the same circus

According to The Guardian, Facebook said that "the company would be putting forward its chief technology officer, Mike Schroepfer, or its chief product officer, Chris Cox."

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/27/facebook-...

It's no secret that Zukerberg is not very charismatic; IMO he looks kinda rehearsed and scared when he speaks in public.

Cox and Schroepfer both seem more comfortable in front of cameras from what I can find online, and to be honest would probably have better insight into what happened. After all, it's their jobs as the heads of product, and technology.

Which is fair enough, but the point is it's not Mark or Sheryl.

They want a celebrity they can shake their fists at and give a right telling off to. Politicians don't build their careers giving tongue-lashings to non-public figures, and that's going to be a problem now.

As I type this, I've just read that Zuckerberg has agreed to testify before a congressional committee - this is going to piss off MPs in the UK all the more though because he snubbed them first (which in turns means whoever gets sent is going to get a lot more abuse and more of the "Where is he!?" feigned outrage).

I'm frankly surprised that Sheryl Sandberg isn't being sent to the UK if Zuckerberg is testifying in the US (although I don't see why he can't do both). The whole angle at the time of her hiring was that she would be "the grown up in the room". I realize that was a long time ago now, but if ever there was a time for the COO to step up this has to be it.

> I'm frankly surprised that Sheryl Sandberg isn't being sent to the UK if Zuckerberg is testifying in the US (although I don't see why he can't do both). The whole angle at the time of her hiring was that she would be "the grown up in the room".

Arguably, that perception is exactly why he has to send a clear subordinate if he isn't going himself, and not someone perceived to be his babysitter.

Here's what it might look like: video of a FB stooge getting questioned in the Singapore parliament: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziTfDdffUKs

I actually think this is absolutely the wrong move for him if he already came clean. In my estimate, he is being legally advised not to show up to these hearings for reasons unclear to us at the moment. Perhaps there's more to the story than what has been revealed thus far.

There is no conspiracy here. Being publicly scrutanized is not good for business, there is no win for Facebook to be had in this format.

Perhaps not but there is a big difference between going on TV and taking out an apology ad vs. appearing in sworn-in hearings. Recall this is a part of an ongoing issue that they have been carefully trying to manage for the past few years. Unfortunately for Facebook, they are very much in the public space by design. If they cannot withstand this level of public scrutiny, then they are effectively conceding that they "don't deserve" to serve the public.

There's a possible win—people would have assumed he was sincere in his apology. Sure it would be bad for business, but perhaps some things are more important than business.

There's no conspiracy: huge political ad campaigns were purchased in rubles sent from Russian bank accounts. Moreover:

* Monthly meetings with Yuri Milner after he invests $200 million dollars of Gazprom money in facebook after the 2008 crash.

* Facebook assigning liaisons to work at the Trump campaign offices - side by side, if not directly with, Cambridge Analytica. Kushner implies it's directly with them.

“We found that Facebook and digital targeting were the most effective ways to reach the audiences. After the primary, we started ramping up because we knew that doing a national campaign is different than doing a primary campaign. That was when we formalized the system because we had to ramp up for digital fundraising. We brought in Cambridge Analytica. I called some of my friends from Silicon Valley who were some of the best digital marketers in the world. And I asked them how to scale this stuff."

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-40852227/the-digital-gur...

I am sure certain members of the Gov won't forget the lack of his appearance (and the impression it gives) so who knows if it was a good business decision or not, down the line.

So really not that much different than US Congress where he's still potentially going to appear?

> still potentially going to appear

...and if I were a betting man, "not going to appear."

Zuckerburg's strength is not PR or public conversations. It makes zero sense to me why he would represent Facebook to US Congress.

Would you feel the same way if the CEO of some massive Russian or Chinese firm holding the private data on millions and millions of American citizens refused to appear before the American Congress?

I mean....I would still recognize it as the correct business decision, even though I would personally dislike it. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

Interesting how the "correct" business decision often deviates from what we feel is morally responsible.

No one said "morally responsible", just "I would personally dislike it".

I also dislike that I'll have to wait at red lights this morning; that doesn't make red lights morally deviant.

As an American, I have to say Parliament debates are relatively entertaining and seem light years more intelligent than what comes out of Congress.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com