
U.K. Lawmakers accuse Facebook's CEO of leadership failure - SirLJ
https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-humiliated-by-damian-collins-committee-2019-2
======
ausbah
Facebook's market valuation, active user count, and other normal metrics of
success for them don't appear to have been negatively influenced in any
meaningful way despite the crap they've been subject to for the past 2+ years.
Regardless of if Facebook is overall "good" thing to have around, from the
perspective of Facebook's shareholders Zuckerburg has been a great leader for
the company.

~~~
gberger
The same can be said about oil companies profiting from climate change. Or any
other industry practice that harms consumers/society while raking in profits.

And this is exactly why it needs regulation.

~~~
thetruthseeker1
May be. However lawmakers don’t roast oil execs. It seems to me like there is
a lot of kabuki theater here and if law makers want to do something to improve
social media, there are better ways to get Zuckerberg to co-operate than this
method

~~~
rusk
_> there are better ways to get Zuckerberg to co-operate_

I think you misspelled "compell".

Regulatory compliance is not a matter of cooperation.

~~~
thetruthseeker1
I don’t think the requirement that the CEO appear in a public deposition is
part regulatory compliance( usually good faith). If Facebook is not in
regulatory compliance, I am sure they will be fined millions.

~~~
xianb
probably need to be fined billions to get them to take it seriously

------
Rooster61
I'm wondering when the flashpoint will be when a standing government is
publicly given the finger by a megacorporation. It's happening quite often
these days through wishy-washy sideways explanations and question dodging
worthy of the very government members that are doing the questioning, but
eventually corporate executives will get to the point that they no longer find
that they NEED to do such things, daring the world's presidents and
parliaments to do anything to stop them.

At that point, I think society will need to question where they have given
power: to the governments through taxes and laws, or to corporations through
willful dollars and convenience? After all, what power does a body have if not
granted it by the people (at least ideally)?

~~~
azernik
At which point the megacorps will discover that governments command actual
loyalty and a monopoly on force. Corporations only have such massive power
because institutions of government have abdicated their responsibility to
control them. Maintaining that status quo requires business to at least pay
lip service (and sometimes money) to the supremacy of government.

~~~
philipov
The point which GP refers to, where corporations find they will no longer need
to pay lip service, is precisely the point where governments lose that
monopoly of force.

I think we have a lot to learn from how generations of infighting for control
of the Roman empire led to the disintegration of civic society that allowed
the Christian church to fill the power vacuum. The transition from the
Principate, during which Emperors still paid lip service to the Senate, to the
Dominate, where the pretense was lifted, was made possible because centuries
of factionalism had destroyed the foundations that allowed checks and balances
to be enforced.

~~~
randomsearch
In addition: consider that “force” also relates to actions online. A
government may be able to arrest employees of a company on its soil, but
consider the consequences of Google turning off gmail/google access in the UK.
Not parity, but that power is real and something governments should be worried
about.

~~~
Rooster61
I imagine more the reams and reams of data that Google (and the rest of FAANG)
has stored on each and every citizen, including those elected to power. They
could utterly destroy virtually anyone sitting in office politically with a
few keystrokes.

~~~
anpago
That also goes the other way what does 5 Eyes have on those in FAANG?

------
flexie
British lawmakers accuse Zuckerberg of spectacular leadership failure? Hmm...

It’s not that I don’t agree, it’s just a funny accusation coming from them.

~~~
bitL
"It takes one to spot one". They must be speaking from their own
experience/mastery of the subject.

------
evv
I'm intrigued by the incentives that Zuckerberg would have to show up to a
hearing like this..

1\. What is the legal risk of not showing up? What are these lawmakers likely
to do against him or Facebook? Can they compel him to personally testify?

2\. What would be the moral obligation of showing up to answer questions? What
does he owe them, really?

3\. What is best for the financial interests of the company? What good would
come out of sending Zuck out?

I assume his decision was mostly directed by the answer to number 3, but the
others are curious thought experiments.

~~~
Spooky23
It’s a hard question. We live in tumultuous times... a more left wing
government could use Facebooks’ contempt for all against them, harshly.

~~~
gberger
Could you please elaborate on how the political leaning of the government
could affect this situation?

~~~
Spooky23
In the US, the political will to clamp down on telecom and entities like
Facebook just isn’t there, because they tend to benefit from it and that type
of end to end regulation isn’t in alignment with their broader interests.

A more left wing US administration and Congress would be able to make sweeping
changes that would heavily impact Facebook. The FCC has regulatory powers that
could be expanded, legislation could enact something like the former fairness
doctrine, etc.

The global power of the federal government is not well appreciated.

~~~
gberger
Thanks for clarifying, I was initially confused because the article is UK/EU-
based where such differentiations aren't as prevalent.

~~~
Spooky23
I think they feed each other as the US/UK wouldn’t allow for serious sanction
of a major US company unless political conditions get much worse.

------
Bucephalus355
It’s so awkward seeing Mark Zuckerberg try to navigate all this and mostly
failing, despite being a generally smart guy and all that.

I’ve heard once you get in power you’ll be surrounded by 1). Ppl who are just
like you because we as humans prefer that and 2). Ppl who flatter you very
convincingly because we as humans also prefer that.

This can be a very dangerous situation to be in. You think everything is
alright while outside the world flails and rages.

Who in the world is advising Mark Zuckerberg?

~~~
addicted
I suspect Zuckerberg’s failures have little to do with a lack of intelligence
or poor management, but with the fact that Facebook has unprecedented power
and size, and the only possible solutions to fix the problems Facebook
presents, (massive regulation, or breakup) are not possible for him to
suggest.

------
65934
I'm not a Zuckerberg sympathiser, but whatever he is doing is a really
stressful job.

Scaling is hard, and everyone fails a few times on the way.

Still, these UK lawmakers taunting him is extremely ironic.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
A select committee is distinct from government, and Theresa May's inability to
organise a piss up in a brewery. They are carefully bipartisan. DCMS committee
currently has an equal number from Labour and Tories, and one SNP. Committees
are equally happy to lay into government.

As has been the case for 40 years (some might claim 200) or more, the Tories
would prefer to put the Tories before anything trivial like "the National
Interest". Brexit was guaranteed to be a dumpster fire from the moment Cameron
put a referendum in the manifesto.

------
newprint
There is no failure. It is FB business model.

------
billfruit
UK government with its shady GCHQ, and all-around general incompetancy isn't
realy someone to be trusted to understand and act on such nuanced issues.

The UK government and its organizations have had history of extra judicial
killings(Esp during the Troubles), and stockpiling nuclear weapons, morally
the stuff that FB is being called out for isn't even on the same scale.

------
ihuman
Edit: Ignore my post. Original title is longer than the max title length for
posts.

The post title doesn't match the article's title. The post is "Zuckerberg
roasted by lawmakers, accuse him of spectacular leadership failure", but the
article is "Mark Zuckerberg humiliated by group of lawmakers, who accuse
Facebook's CEO of spectacular leadership failure."

The internet archive goes back to 23 minutes after the article was originally
posted [0], and it still has the current title. The original poster
editorialized the title.

[0]
[https://web.archive.org/web/20190218130633/https://www.busin...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190218130633/https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-
ceo-mark-zuckerberg-humiliated-by-damian-collins-committee-2019-2)

~~~
drugme
Except that title was too long by 30 chars. There's an 80 character limit on
titles, if you didn't know.

"So if the title does not fit, you must edit it".

~~~
ihuman
I didn't know that. Thanks for letting me know.

------
duxup
It's not leadership failure. It is what Facebook IS fundamentally as a
company. There are no rules. They proven it time and again. There is no real
will to do anything differently.

------
julienreszka
Usual british arrogance. THE USA ARE NOT A BRITISH COLONY. The opposite might
very well be true tho.

------
ProAm
Kettle meet Pot, Pot meet Kettle.

------
crsmithdev
To be fair, UK lawmakers are _very_ familiar with leadership failure these
days.

------
malvosenior
_The UK 's Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport Committee on Monday released its
report on disinformation and "fake news" following an 18-month inquiry, which
took in evidence from 73 witnesses._

 _The report called for urgent regulation of Facebook — including an
independent UK body to stamp out harmful or illegal content — and skewered
Zuckerberg for refusing to give evidence to the committee three times._

I almost closed my browser tab at "fake news". There are legitimate concerns
about Facebook, but this isn't it. The UK government seems bound and
determined to increase it's censorship foothold.

Can anyone in the UK comment on how these types of things are received by
regular citizens? Are you concerned that your government is cracking down on
content with censorship left and right?

~~~
Kurtz79
"I almost closed my browser tab at "fake news". There are legitimate concerns
about Facebook, but this isn't it."

That's one of the main concerns about Facebook (aside from privacy).

Anyone can post any kind of fake story with tremendous reach and no
accountability or traceability.

[https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/30/read-all-about-it-the-
bigges...](https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/30/read-all-about-it-the-biggest-fake-
news-stories-of-2016.html)

~~~
malvosenior
CNBC pretending like this is a big deal _is_ fake news.

------
arcaster
I think all kinds, on both political isles, walks of life, etc. Would
genuinely enjoy an official "Roast of Mark Zuckerberg" streamed live and
hosted by Jeff Ross.

With all proceeds of the stream / adverts given to the EFF or CitizenLab et
al.

~~~
arcaster
Pls commend or DM if you'd be interested in contributing to a crow-funded
campaign for this.

I'd bet we'd surpass the crowd-funding records set by Star Citizen...

Could be a whole new kind of "public justice by civic discourse for charity"?
lmao

------
kolbe
Can we please, please, as a culture, quit treating the idea that someone was
'roasted' or 'embarrassed' or 'wrecked' as if it's news? If you're a news
source, tell me the facts supported by salient and educated opinions about
important situations. Leave the comedic commentary to John Oliver.

------
thinkindie
I don't want to take the part of Zuckerberg nor Facebook, but "spectacular
leadership failure" from UK lawmakers after two years trying to get out of EU
is a bit funny.

~~~
evv
Why do you think they are so enraged at Facebook? Cambridge Analytica and the
data they stole through Facebook was pivotal for the UK's "Leave" campaign.

~~~
dominotw
> Cambridge Analytica and the data they stole through Facebook was pivotal for
> the UK's "Leave" campaign.

Source?

update, pls see my comment before downvoting:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19192463](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19192463)

~~~
pjc50
Isn't this in the actual report that we're supposedly discussing even though
none of us has read the whole thing?

~~~
dominotw
> Isn't this in the actual report

Ok found the source referred in the report
[https://www.upguard.com/breaches/aggregate-iq-part-two-
brexi...](https://www.upguard.com/breaches/aggregate-iq-part-two-brexit)

I still don't see where it says "Cambridge was pivotal to brexit."

It links it to something called "AggregateIQ" not Cambridge. Am i reading this
wrong?

~~~
pjc50
They're linked: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2018/mar/31/aggregateiq-...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2018/mar/31/aggregateiq-canadian-tech-brexit-data-riddle-cambridge-
analytica)

