One thing Greenwald misses in this article is related to:
>Zuckerberg in particular has minimal capacity to communicate the way human beings naturally do. The Facebook CEO was obviously instructed by a team of public speaking consultants that it is customary to address members of the Committee as “Congressman” or “Congresswoman.” ... For every question directed to him, he paused for several seconds, had his internal algorithms search for the relevant place in the metaphorical cassette inserted in a hidden box in his back, uttered the word “Congressman” or “Congresswoman,” stopped for several more seconds to search for the next applicable spot in the spine-cassette, and then proceeded unblinkingly to recite the words slowly transmitted into his neurons.
Anyone even superficially prepared by a lawyer for a deposition (and testifying before Congress may be the most serious deposition possible) is instructed to lengthen all responses to just before the line of "obstructing the questioning."
In this game of modern "congressional investigation," where congresspeople are incentivized to advertise their agenda as opposed to acquire new information (investigate), it is in the best interest of the testifier, as in most depositions, to say as little as possible.
Who knows what Zuckerberg is really like personality-wise. It is likely that how he is in front of Congress is not how he is in a relaxed setting. This fact doesn't generate the clicks that calling him a robot does though...
Mmm, yes. There is a fun game to play of "what else could have happened?". I've watched enough politically charged interviews. The only people who come out ahead by being genuine either face a sympathetic questioner, or are experienced barristers. There are more pitfalls than people realise.
Honesty gets a bad outcome for the speaker. Lies get bad outcomes for the speakers. Reasonableness gets a bad outcome. Hysterics gets a really bad outcome. The best outcome is boring, forgettable, and managing to not actually say anything that isn't pre-prepared and vetted by a legal professional. It doesn't look good then it goes away after a few days.
Yeah, it is pretty obvious that he is trading legal consequences in exchange for reputation loss. The way he speaks didn't surprise me at all. The court case against that GME investor was also filled with robots. The Robinhood CEO was the most robotic of them all, because he had a lot to hide.
The personal attacks on Zuckerberg are really inappropriate. I don't know him or what he's like in person. I do think Facebook does plenty of questionable things. But so much criticism of him is literally elementary school playground level "Ewww He's weeeeiiirrrrdddd". It's stupid and embarrassing. Talk about the substance.
> (and testifying before Congress may be the most serious deposition possible)
Is it though? How many people face any kind of consequences for, e.g., lying under oath? (Compared to a civil case or being a witness in a criminal trial.)
That's a good question. I think you're right that there probably isn't much personal liability (although Martin Shkreli probably didn't help himself). I think it's more of a corporate liability - whatever they say will be used against them in future lawsuits.
Hack of a CEO of such a top public company deserves to have his speaking abilities scrutinized. And totally appropriate to spend 15% of the article on this and conclude one area where MoC's across the idealogical spectrum appeared united on.
Besides, explaining away Zuck's weakness as some kind of courtroom tactic is probably what was meant by superficial and/or extraneous.
>Zuckerberg in particular has minimal capacity to communicate the way human beings naturally do. The Facebook CEO was obviously instructed by a team of public speaking consultants that it is customary to address members of the Committee as “Congressman” or “Congresswoman.” ... For every question directed to him, he paused for several seconds, had his internal algorithms search for the relevant place in the metaphorical cassette inserted in a hidden box in his back, uttered the word “Congressman” or “Congresswoman,” stopped for several more seconds to search for the next applicable spot in the spine-cassette, and then proceeded unblinkingly to recite the words slowly transmitted into his neurons.
Anyone even superficially prepared by a lawyer for a deposition (and testifying before Congress may be the most serious deposition possible) is instructed to lengthen all responses to just before the line of "obstructing the questioning."
In this game of modern "congressional investigation," where congresspeople are incentivized to advertise their agenda as opposed to acquire new information (investigate), it is in the best interest of the testifier, as in most depositions, to say as little as possible.
Who knows what Zuckerberg is really like personality-wise. It is likely that how he is in front of Congress is not how he is in a relaxed setting. This fact doesn't generate the clicks that calling him a robot does though...