
Facebook's Zuckerberg will not appear before British MPs - AJRF
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43554135
======
hanoz
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.

~~~
headmelted
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.

~~~
andyjohnson0
> 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-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/27/facebook-
mark-zuckerberg-declines-to-appear-before-uk-fake-news-inquiry-mps)

~~~
headmelted
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

------
martinald
Facebooks PR seems all over the place. It seems to go like this:

1) Blame users/say it wasn't as bad/not a breach

2) Controversy gets worse

3) Apologise, say we got it wrong, working on it

I think this is especially dumb as FB took out a personally-signed-by-
Zuckerberg letter in 6 UK sunday papers last weekend. It looks very fake.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _FB took out a personally-signed-by-Zuckerberg letter in 6 UK sunday papers
> last weekend_

Were they identically worded?

~~~
martinald
Yes, but it wasn't signed by the CPO, the board, or anyone, they were all
signed by Zuckerberg so I think it looks especially fake to take out those ads
(which are especially targeted at the 'political class' IMO) and then refuse
to come before MPs.

Source:
[https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180325071038-01-faceb...](https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180325071038-01-facebook-
apology-note-exlarge-169.jpg)

~~~
throwawayReply
That makes it sound like people are upset about an isolated incident, trying
to play this off as an isolated incident is going to blow up very badly as
people "discover" just how much of their data is everywhere, whether they gave
permission or not this isn't about a single breach.

------
noir-york
No representation without taxation.

Why should Facebook send Zuckerberg when Facebook paid a grand total of £2.6
million taxes to the UK in 2017.

If the British parliament wants Zuckerberg to attend, make the UK relevant to
Facebook. Tax it.

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/04/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/04/facebook-
uk-corporation-tax-profit)

~~~
bambataa
Did you read the linked article? Facebook deliberately structure their
operations to try and avoid paying UK tax. So it seems odd to then cite that
as a reason for him not attending.

~~~
noir-york
Yes, of course I read the article. If there was political will, Facebook would
pay taxes in the UK.

The article I linked to in my comment showed that FBK paid (slightly) more
taxes in 2017 than in 2016 following a public outcry.

Political pressure and HMRC's best and brightest could surely find ways to
make Facebook pay a just level of taxes.

~~~
bambataa
But their current arrangements are partly a result of political lobbying. So
if they’re politically engaged enough to lower their taxes why aren’t they
politically engaged enough to answer to this?

------
amelius
Come on Zuck, think about how this will make you look in the sequel of "The
Social Network".

~~~
majewsky
"The Antisocial Network"?

~~~
inetknght
That title is a slap on the face for us Americans who confuse antisocial with
asocial.

Perfect.

------
gianmaro
It feels like Zuck is in panic and listening too much to his PR advisors who
are likely telling him to stay out of the public until the storm settles. Not
a smart move on this particular case

~~~
tonyedgecombe
To be fair being called in front of MP's is like a ritualised grilling,
nothing ever comes out of it other than total humiliation for the victim.

~~~
chrisseaton
Yes is this a new thing? I don't remember in the past the committees being so
publicly snide and unpleasant like they seem to be now. Maybe it wasn't
televised so prominently before?

And the most strange part is how they now have celebrity appearances as well -
comedians and actors?

~~~
cbzbc
They always let loose a little - you can go back and look at old transcripts
and see much the same thing.

There's a certain element of it becoming slightly worse due to being
televised. In an era where there is a huge gap between government rhetoric and
practice, it can be a useful way to signal ones 'principles' even as one files
obediently through the government lobby when it comes to voting on actual
legislation.

------
d3ckard
Wrong time to chicken out. That will probably have serious consequences for FB
in Europe and will help with convincing people to regulations like revenue-
based taxation.

------
rndmio
As someone from the UK I am not at all surprised, there is no upside to him
doing so. There is nothing he can say that will help, the committee will
absolutely rip into him as their primary audience is the press and people of
the UK, they don't really care about his answers to their questions. The
problem is that the story isn't about FB making mistakes, or being hacked, or
doing something they said they wouldn't. It's that people are working out what
it is they've agreed to to use the service, and there is no spinning that.

~~~
OrganicMSG
>It's that people are working out what it is they've agreed to to use the
service

If the vast majority of users are only working out what they have signed up
for now, after using the service for years, then it would be hard to argue
that Facebook's users have given informed consent to a contract, which is
generally a legal requirement here for it to be said that you have agreed to
something.

~~~
dwringer
When I and a lot of people I know signed up, an active .edu email was
required. It was like the unprofessional kids' version of LinkedIn. The
implicit conditions of the agreement to sign up for an account - that only
other students and academic faculty could use the service and engage with
content - were completely abandoned _after_ they had cornered a part of their
"social graph".

------
mrleiter
Saying this is a strategic mistake may be a bit too early to tell. It depends
on whether this issue will slowly disappear in the media and minds of people
(like most things). He has no legal obligation to appear if I understand
correctly. The select committee mainly consists of MPs who objected Brexit. Of
course they try to make their point that the vote was skewed or manipulated.
If, on the other hand, the pressure stays on, it may very well be a strategic
mistake not to appear.

~~~
Milner08
What on earth does their stance on Brexit have to do with there position in
the select committee?!

~~~
alistairSH
Brexit is relevant, because like the election of Trump, it appears nefarious
actors (likely Russians in both cases) used Facebook to drive votes in a
particular direction (pro-Trump, pro-Brexit).

~~~
darepublic
Some people posted fake content on Facebook? And that is responsible for the
election of Trump and Brexit? If you actually believe that there's some pop up
internet ads I have ready for you...

~~~
Veen
Not so long ago, Zuckerberg said it was "crazy" to think that Facebook
influenced the US election. I don't think he's quite so confident of that
today.

~~~
darepublic
Zuck could be "persuaded" of anything I'm sure to placate the scapegoating
whiners of the western world. The thing is if you're vacuous enough to invest
a lot of yourself on fb you are equally vacuous to join the pitchfork mobs at
the prompting of mass media.

------
simonbarker87
I said it in a previous post but if the congress/senate were allowed to summon
Tony Hayward, BP CEO, over the Deep Water Horizon disaster then the UK
Parliament are well in their rights to summon, and expect attendance, of
Zukerberg over this.

~~~
chrisseaton
> the UK Parliament are well in their rights to summon, and expect attendance,
> of Zukerberg over this

But they aren't within their rights to summon him. That's not a power they
have. They can invite him, and they did, but he doesn't have to go and speak
to a committee if he doesn't want to.

~~~
walshemj
I believe they (select committees) can compel witnesses within the UK so
visiting the UK might be a problem.

Its never been done recently - though god knows what old laws are still on the
books that could be applied.

~~~
liberte82
Can the Queen order his execution?

~~~
walshemj
Well the UK abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

I think acts of attainder (ie your are declared guilty by parliament with out
judicial process ) is not longer leagal

The act of attainder was considered so bad that was banned by the founders in
the US constitution.

~~~
liberte82
Isn’t the Queen’s authority extra-parliamentary?

------
Silhouette
Not a complete surprise, but I suspect this is a strategic mistake from
Zuckerberg. It's going to send the wrong message, at a time when Facebook is
already under pressure and regulators in the EU are about to be given the most
powerful privacy tools (and the most heavy penalty regime) they've ever had to
work with.

~~~
kazen44
I wonder if regulators will just decide the split up facebook.

It would take a ton of leverage and political goodwill across both the EU and
the US, but i have no doubt it could happen.

~~~
babuskov
> I wonder if regulators will just decide the split up facebook.

I keep hearing this suggestion and it makes no sense. Split into what? It
would be like asking to split Google into one company doing the search and
another one doing the ads. You're talking about loss leader strategy here and
you cannot have a company whose only product is a loss leader. Majority of
users won't pay to have search or social network. They value their privacy
much lower and would trade it to get the services without direct monetary
compensation.

~~~
Slansitartop
> I keep hearing this suggestion and it makes no sense. Split into what?

Instagram, WhatsApp, and multiple competing Facebook copies (say Facebook Red,
Facebook Green, and Facebook Orange) with a _mandate to interoperate_ with
each other and with other networks. Existing accounts are divided randomly and
evenly between the copies.

------
OrganicMSG
I wonder if this will affect their tax arrangements, as they have been treated
rather nicely up till now.

In 2014, Facebook paid £4,327 in tax to the UK. The next year, they paid £4.16
million, which seems to be an improvement but then in the same year they were
given an £11 million tax credit, so not so much.

------
chrischen
> "You have a wealthy company from a developed nation going into an economy or
> democracy that's still struggling to get its feet on the ground - and taking
> advantage of that to profit from that," he told MPs.

Christopher Wylie (ex-Facebook whistleblower) just gave the primary reason why
Facebook is blocked in China.

~~~
Slansitartop
>> "You have a wealthy company from a developed nation going into an economy
or democracy that's still struggling to get its feet on the ground - and
taking advantage of that to profit from that," he told MPs.

> Christopher Wylie (ex-Facebook whistleblower) just gave the primary reason
> why Facebook is blocked in China.

No. China isn't a "democracy that's still struggling to get its feet on the
ground," China is a country run by anti-democratic authoritarians who want to
protect their power by controlling the information their people see. It's also
rather protectionist, and does not want foreign companies to be major players
on its internet. The way Facebook makes its money has _nothing_ to do with why
it's blocked there.

~~~
chrischen
So you think the Chinese government's motivation for protectionism is purely
because they are undemocratic evil-doers hell-bent on preserving their power.

I disagree and believe they have other motivations behind protectionism,
limiting democracy, and authoritarianism.

It seems you probably don't have background in Chinese history. There was a
period pre-WWII where China was divvied up by colonial powers and humiliated
in defeats for over a century (primarily due to a weak navy). The country was
addicted at that time not to Facebook but to opium, which was imposed upon by
foreign influence. Both nationalist and communist parties recognized this and
vowed to unify and expel foreign power. The communists ended up essentially
winning, but the legacy of weariness towards foreign influence persisted.

I can assure you the #1 and #2 things in China's mind when banning facebook
and google are to #1 prevent a backdoor for the US into massive data
collection and #2 nurture homegrown technology companies to prevent spilling
wealth out. You might consider #2 to be unfair, but you'd also have to
consider that the US was a fully developed economy, and China's developing
economy would not be fairly competing against foreign tech companies. The
decision has nothing to do with free speech as facebook would simply have to
comply with local laws and would have gladly censored at the request of
China—but that wasn't the issue.

That being said, protectionism isn't exclusive to China. It's adopted heavily
in Japan too, as well as in the US. You can't really argue for or against it
as it's a matter of sovereign policy as foreign citizens do not have a natural
right to exploit a sovereign market.

Regarding democracy and authoritarianism, keep in mind the the country was
super poor and uneducated. Ceding power democratically across the country
would have probably resulted in massive corruption. The country is not a
dictatorship though, but it is governed by a subset of the population who are
communist party members. While they probably want to keep power to themselves,
they'll also in theory be better governors than the general public.

Believe it or not the population of China overwhelmingly supports their
government. The authority and legitimacy of a government does not come from
democracy per se (nor from opinions of people half-way around the world), but
from the people. Democracy is a great way to represent the power of the
people, but as long as the population approves and delegates power to the
government (by not rebelling), then it has legitimacy.

So no there's no democracy, but if they did have a vote right now the people
would side with their government, and not the poorly informed foreign distant
opinions from people like yourself. It just so happens their form of
government does not delegate decisions of governance at the same granularity
to the people as we do in America, but then again we don't have much
granularity either through our representative form of government (we don't
even pick the president!).

They pick their premier through rules of the communist party. We pick our
president through a set of complex rules masking the fact that an electoral
college actually selects the president (with things like super-delegates,
which were enacted to reduce the power of the average voter since one election
the democratically elected candidate didn't satisfy the DNC party
expectations). In the end they have one party, we have only two real parties.
There's not much difference except we directly elect a few more
representatives than they do.

~~~
Slansitartop
> Regarding democracy and authoritarianism, keep in mind the the country was
> super poor and uneducated. Ceding power democratically across the country
> would have probably resulted in massive corruption.

Are you claiming China's government isn't massively corrupt right now?

> The country is not a dictatorship though

Never claimed that it was (at this moment).

> Believe it or not the population of China overwhelmingly supports their
> government. The authority and legitimacy of a government does not come from
> democracy per se (nor from opinions of people half-way around the world),
> but from the people. Democracy is a great way to represent the power of the
> people, but as long as the population approves and delegates power to the
> government (by not rebelling), then it has legitimacy.

I too have seen that state-published English-language book about the survey
that "shows" the Chinese people want a "moral" government before a democratic
one. It's right next to a similar title about "true history" of the Dalai
Llama (or something like that) in the bookshop in the international terminal
of the Beijing airport. On some level, I agree it's true.

But the question of, "do the Chinese people support their government" is a
complicated one that I don't think is even answerable at a meaningful level
right now. The Chinese information environment doesn't permit it, since it
doesn't give the Chinese people the necessary ideological framework or
information about alternatives to even form an _independent_ opinion. I'm sure
some people do so anyway, but it's a much harder task. In the west people
benefit from concepts like "you can love your country and hate your
government;" relatively unbiased information; and more varied, competing,
opinions.

> So you think the Chinese government's motivation for protectionism is purely
> because they are undemocratic evil-doers hell-bent on preserving their
> power.

> I disagree and believe they have other motivations behind protectionism,
> limiting democracy, and authoritarianism.

And those motivations are? The historic national humiliation thing? To be
honest that reads as more of a convenient "surface" justification akin to
American evidence-laundering via "parallel construction" from evidence
obtained by illegal surveillance. It's not supported by the history of Google
in China, for instance. They had a large ~30% marketshare until they refused
to play ball on censorship, they then they were blocked, _but not before_.

~~~
chrischen
> Are you claiming China's government isn't massively corrupt right now?

The corruption happens at lower levels, and is usually a byproduct of too much
power granted to someone who doesn't deserve it. Enabling democracy would have
caused more corruption as it requires a well-informed public. China during the
revolution was definitely not full of educated and well-informed people.

> But the question of, "do the Chinese people support their government" is a
> complicated one that I don't think is even answerable at a meaningful level
> right now. The Chinese information environment doesn't permit it, since it
> doesn't give the Chinese people the necessary ideological framework or
> information about alternatives to even form an independent opinion. I'm sure
> some people do so anyway, but it's a much harder task. In the west people
> benefit from concepts like "you can love your country and hate your
> government;" relatively unbiased information; and more varied, competing,
> opinions.

You're clearly not Chinese, and probably don't many people in China. But I am,
and I know people who live in China (middle class, even poor people), and the
sentiment is that the government is doing a good job.

> And those motivations are? The historic national humiliation thing? To be
> honest that reads as more of a convenient "surface" justification akin to
> American evidence-laundering via "parallel construction" from evidence
> obtained by illegal surveillance. It's not supported by the history of
> Google in China, for instance. They had a large ~30% marketshare until they
> refused to play ball on censorship, they then they were blocked, but not
> before.

Protectionism is preferred by countries in the same way as the "Buy USA"
rhetoric in America that you may be able to relate to. The unique history
China had with colonialism is just a bonus. It turns out that China was smart
enough to recognize the national importance of the internet technology
industry, and levied massive walls against them. You can't easily put an
import _tax_ on Google, but you _can_ block them. I can guarantee you it had
nothing to do with censorship. Google/Facebook are businesses and would never
make a stand by jeopardizing their China business by not complying with local
censorship laws. It was never about that. It was simply because they were not
welcome, and that if they did flourish they'd have troves of data on Chinese
citizens in the hands of a foreign entity.

~~~
Slansitartop
> The corruption happens at lower levels, and is usually a byproduct of too
> much power granted to someone who doesn't deserve it.

On what basis do you make that judgement? Isn't it too difficult to truly
learn about the activities of high government officials?

> China during the revolution was definitely not full of educated and well-
> informed people.

There has been quite a bit of time since the revolution. Do you think the
Chinese people are well-informed enough for democracy (or at least more
political liberalization) now? If not, why not?

> You're clearly not Chinese, and probably don't many people in China. But I
> am, and I know people who live in China (middle class, even poor people),
> and the sentiment is that the government is doing a good job.

I know many Chinese people very well. Are you yourself from China or do you
similarly just know many people from there? I think the former is likely, but
your phrasing is ambiguous.

> [Among] people who live in China (middle class, even poor people), [...] the
> sentiment is that the government is doing a good job.

That doesn't contradict anything that I wrote, in fact I said that's probably
true. My point, stated more bluntly, is that it doesn't mean much if their
opinion is controlled. The necessary environment for informed opinion includes
open information and freedom from coercion, neither of which exist in mainland
China.

------
andy_ppp
Can one of the mods explain the dramatic killing of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16687588](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16687588)
its a perfectly valid discussion with an article by a reasonable publication?

------
AngeloAnolin
Mark was _invited_ and he declined. What's really wrong with that?

His wisdom and personal belief (including legal and lawyer suggestions) tells
him that coming over to the invitation would not do him (nor his company) any
good.

And, given with all the information he has supposedly with people, he may
already have some knowledge of the personality of the MPs who are going to
grill him that he may think otherwise that appearing before them would
tantamount into a gong show.

~~~
Silhouette
Legally speaking, there might not be anything wrong with it.

Practically speaking, he just snubbed an influential, cross-party group of
MPs, and the House of Commons where those MPs and their colleagues sit has the
closest thing to absolute power that exists within our legal system.

These are people who could pass emergency legislation imposing a windfall tax
on Facebook amounting to 100% of everything it does or owns in UK territory
and authorising HMRC to immediately seize assets accordingly. They could pass
laws requiring all UK-based ISPs to filter Facebook traffic any way they want.
They could pass laws imposing an extremely privacy-focussed data protection
regime, even more so than the GDPR that is already due to come into effect in
a couple of months.

Now, obviously such extreme reactions are unlikely in response to this snub,
even given the history here. But there is a whole scale of possible responses
to Facebook's current situation, and large fines and/or some of the people
involved actually going to prison are not out of the question. Tempting fate
may not be the smartest business move Facebook could make.

------
bowlofpetunias
This is the ultimate act of Silicon Valley arrogance, at it will backfire
hard.

Not just on Facebook, and not just in the UK. This crosses a line all
democratic nations in which SV companies have significant interests and even
more significant influence will take note of.

SV and apparently large parts of HN are completely delusional if they think
this won't have serious consequences.

------
nealdt
Aside from everything, I find it remarkable that the media are gunning for
facebook right now (referencing all those shady algorithms / shady
partnerships etc etc) to the extent that facebook is a 'dirty word' and yet
the newspapers are evidently quite happy to accept payment for full page ads
in their publications from ... facebook.

------
merinowool
What happens if someone decided to commit a crime using SaaS platform, then
requests data to be deleted. Police then go to SaaS provider and such provider
can't give any data. Is SaaS provider going to be blamed?

------
mhh__
Has Zuckerberg done any thing like this before (e.g. Microsoft vs. United
States style things)

------
fwdpropaganda
Keep digging, Mark.

------
techer
Coward of cowards.

------
Agebor
Reading comments lately on HN feels like an expression of Two Minutes Hate.

~~~
codq
HN is highly critical of everything, especially closed-gardens and data
manipulation. Of course there’s a distaste for FB.

------
notafxn
I hope this hate on FB ends already, I'm tired of seeing the home page of HN
polluted by it.

We all knew what was going on on FB, so acting surprised is silly. And we all
know this won't change nothing because most people don't care and will happily
keep using FB. And we also know even if people stop using FB they will keep
using WA/IG. So what's the point? Is this only a problem now that Trump took
advantage of it?

~~~
AJRF
Who is acting surprised?

Why do you think it is inevitable that people would use WhatsApp or Instagram
if they decide to leave Facebook? Is that really as obvious as you are making
it out to be? Is there any evidence of that?

The point is that finally, FINALLY the mainstream is paying attention to the
potential ramifications of having a consolidated identity on social media, and
how they potentially could have their perception of reality distorted by using
such services. Now is the time to embrace changes if they come, not to get
complacent at the news cycle based on ones own personal cognitive biases.

~~~
tjomk
The problem is not only Facebook that distorts the reality, it's most of the
media. Look at mainstream media like CNN or RT which favour one side and
totally ignore the arguments of the other.

All of that will continue to happen no matter what until people start to think
critically and question all the information they get, be it from their
parents, school teachers, news outlets or social media.

In my circle of friends in fact a lot of people are using IG and WA and
ditched Facebook long ago. I use all of the three solely because my business
generates a lot of sales through these channels. So I think yes, people will
continue to use it in the foreseeable future. But this opinion is based solely
on my bubble that I live in.

~~~
pjc50
RT is not "mainstream media" in any sensible way, it's Russian state
propaganda TV.

------
maxehmookau
Coward.

------
iwannasay
No matter how much of a mistake Facebook make with their PR, they're gonna get
away with it.

Primarily because a majority of the public can't sustain their interest in the
subject beyond their day-to-day concerns in life.

I mean the whole argument here is that stolen user data from Facebook led a
marketing agency to enable a political party with a certain agenda to deceive
the public and win a democratic vote. Gathering so much power is a big victory
in the first place, that is not so easy to ignore / forget / undo very easily,
especially when most people continue to use Facebook products the way they did
because the news slowly becomes old and people forget and move on.

This subject is bigger than Facebook, it reveals shortcomings of a democratic
vote and how power in the capitalist system can render a democracy to be an
illusion. Facebook's victory is to have accumulated so much power in the first
place. Power aka most personal user data any institute has ever gathered.
Never mind they used shady sly tactics to take permissions in the first place.

