Slashdot Mirror
Zuckerberg Rebuffs Request To Appear Before UK Parliament (apnews.com)
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has rejected a request to appear before an international parliamentary delving into the questions around fake news. From a report: The rebuff came after Damian Collins, the head of the U.K. parliament's media committee, joined forces with his Canadian counterpart in hopes of pressuring Zuckerberg to testify, as he did before the U.S Congress. Facebook rejected the invitation to appear before the so-called "international grand committee" session Nov. 27, arguing it wasn't possible for Zuckerberg to appear before all parliaments.
Alright, I'll try something...
"Hey, Zuckerberg! Don't be a wanker, eh?"
#DeleteFacebook
Send a Facebook Portal to every interested parliament, and Zuckerberg gets to live stream to everyone at once without travelling. There you go Facebook, got your next TV commercial for you--Zuck explaining himself to multiple foreign governments at once! Tell me that doesn't move some hardware....
Play the Commonwealth card! Her Majesty calls you to testify before the 2.4 billion citizens of her Commonwealth Realms and allied republics, many of whom are nations currently targeted by Facebook.
I wouldn't either, even were I pure as the driven snow.
I have no love for Zuck or FB, but it's hard to see this as anything but a dog and pony show, or a kangaroo court.
There's no benefit to him, and plenty of potential downside. Why would he show up?
He must have better things to do than fly around the world explaining things
Then the UK Parliament must keep whatever assumptions they have about Zuck without him having a chance to defend himself or his company, and legislate accordingly.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I guess my first question would be "or what?"
Is the UK going to try to block Facebook? That's a pretty good way to piss off your citizens as well as the government of one of your major trading partners (the United States); to say nothing about inviting the asking of serious questions about the power of the state to censor, etc.
Will they deny him entry into Commonwealth entities? That might be inconvenient, but that would be all.
I'm sure there are other levers to pull, but I'm not sure what they would be.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
If he won't answer questions for the product which is being used on UK soil (and 'sold' on it - adverts etc) then fine, block it pirate-bay style
Sure, it'll be unpopular, but productivity will skyrocket, fake news will probably not get read anywhere near as much, zuckerberg 'may' get the message, and people will discover that there's more to life than facebook.
And I also have no sympathys if your business uses facebook a *lot*. You don't put all your eggs in one basket.
I for one, would welcome a ban/block on facebook, given the damage it does to peoples psychological well being.
to say nothing about inviting the asking of serious questions about the power of the state to censor, etc.
The UK already does censor. There are things called super injunctions that rich people and royals can use to silence the press when they do something embarrassing (and the newspaper's are not even allowed to admit they're being censored when it happens). There is also already censorship of certain types of consensual pron. UK regularly censors what is on children's shows. Some shows from America have to be reworded before being allowed to be shown in UK or get banned altogether. And... don't forget hate speech. You can be arrested just for saying something hateful about a minority.
In many ways Britain is a free and forwards-looking country- but in many other ways it is a censor-heavy contradiction of itself and what it purportedly believes in. I love the UK but it has some back-ass censorship laws in place. They're not going to block Facebook; but, don't act surprised if Britain censors anything. The government certainly reserves the right and there is no written constitution that forbids them.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
If I - as an American - were asked to appear before foreign government bodies for questioning, my response would not be so politic.
They were likely thinking that this foreign US company called Facebook, was conducting business worth billions in their countries with their citizens, likely violating local privacy and finance laws in the process, and before going nuclear with penalties, fines, and extraditions they wanted to give the CEO opportunity to defend his company's actions.
It's a slippery slope. Next month, France wants him to appear, then Spain and Italy, then Angola and China.
So what? What if he ends up going to 20 different countries? He is operating a multinational company and he needs to respect them. If he is operating within a country and doesn't show respect to that ruling body, I hope he get's punished.
I hope when the UK next considers tax laws they do remember this. There's a lot of talk about how big companies like Facebook dodge paying taxes, I hope this event is considered when the UK next looks at how to change that.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
âoeInternet media should spread positive information, uphold the correct political direction, and guide public opinion toward the right direction,â the state-run Xinhua news service reported in April, summarizing the instructions of Mr. Xi, who âoestressed the centralized, unified leadership of the Party over cybersecurity.â
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
The job of a multinational CEO when shit publicly (and potentially criminally) hits the fan is pretty much to fly around and explain things.
Taxes, fines, and regulations.
Regulations especially. The UK or Canada could quite easily make it clear that their existing privacy law applies to Facebook.
Will they deny him entry into Commonwealth entities? That might be inconvenient, but that would be all.
Contrary to what many people think, the Commonwealth member nations are actually independent, or at the very least, self-governing. The UK cannot dictate to the rest of the Commonwealth to ban or otherwise sanction any individual. In other words, even that minor inconvenience isn't even on the table. (And, no, Elizabeth II cannot try throwing her weight as Queen around, even in nations where her power is more than ceremonial, without potentially triggering a wave of monachy abolition movements.)
Obviously, the Commonwealth nations could agree to take some action, but that is unlikely on anything but the least controversial issues. Everyone has a dozen mutually incompatible agendas of their own, never mind trying to figure out something they all agree on with others.
If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
I thought Red meant Russia, a.k.a. "scary Communists". Seeing how they act, except using money instead of the military, it's hard to tell the difference.
#DeleteFacebook
"it wasn't possible for Zuckerberg to appear before all parliaments"
Funny, he seems to have the time to court nearly every country's MARKETS, but not to speak to their government. What, he's got a lot of paperwork to do?
He had the time to basically wander across America on his apologia tour https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... (that was turned into an hilarious meme https://mashable.com/2017/09/2...). But not for, say, the democratically elected representatives of a major western government to speak with him?
-Styopa
He's too busy telling his shitfucker company that posts like "6 million jews wasn't enough" don't count as hate speech. Fucking nazi enabling shitfucker.
and before going nuclear with penalties, fines, and extraditions they wanted to give the CEO opportunity to defend his company's actions.
And defend he would. To the courts, and to the legal challenges against him. On the other hand this is a shitty parliamentary inquiry without legal binding what so ever. There is literally no benefit to him given the allegations against him to talk to these people.
Exactly, all Commonwealth members are equal.
There is one area where they do have to legislate together, namely the Monarchy. Things like the order of succession have to be agreed to by all members of the Commonwealth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
In fact, he'd need only appear before the EU, AU and USAN to have appeared before over two thirds the inhabited globe.
By my count, that's three. His may be different. I am sure he can spare half a week from selling your data to whoever asks.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Agreed. I think that if he can't bother to give the countries the attention they ask for they don't have to do business with facebook. I can see now how many less people would be into the Brexit if they made facebook illegal in Canada and UK. I'm all for this. Facebook isn't so big they can say fuck you to the UK.
I umderstand that he shoild go, but is there any legal reason he must go? It is not a court, so is there a legal reason he must appear? And if not, what are the consequences?
Honest question, as I have no idea snd it is important to the discussion.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
A CEO needs to show respect to governments? Since when?
Companies like Facebook operate within the letter of the law, and when they don't, they send a team of lawyers and delay whatever accusations against them until they become irrelevant. Respect doesn't come into it at any point.
Their only motivation is financial. All other motivations a company may seem to have (like being perceived as green) eventually all boils down to what's best for the bottom line... that's what you get for allowing the creation of entities where there's no direct accountability for any one person -- the worst in people comes out and that's what actually drives companies.
"On the other hand this is a shitty parliamentary inquiry without legal binding what so ever."
It does have legal binding. Parliamentary committees have the power to summons people. As a foreign citizen, not resident in the country, of course, that is hard to enforce and it is not often used.
Oh look an inbred nazi salivating over genocide.
The Count Dankula kerfuffle certainly shows what side the UK stands for. What a fucking waste of taxpayer money that was.
It would be really nice to be able to use wild cards in hosts..
Yes they are.
Zuckerberg is shit, but if other countries don't like our shitbags they can get off our internet.
What I'm suggesting is that there is a formal organization that they can use to put pressure on Zuckerberg. I know that the Commonwealth nations are all independent state, but that's what this kind of multilateral organization is for, to use their collective weight for common interests. Talk about Her Majesty was merely for literary flourish.
The Count Dankula kerfuffle certainly shows what side the UK stands for. What a fucking waste of taxpayer money that was.
Indeed, if you're an F1 millionaire you can get away with Nazi themed sex parties with prostitutes dressed as concentration camp guards and have the newspapers silenced so they can't report on it (at least for a time). If you're a nobody and you post a video showing you pranking your girlfriend by teaching her cute dog to do a Nazi salute you get charged with a hate crime
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
And that is another example of protected speech. You may not like what another person says or does, but by what right do have to silence someone because you think differently? You dont have to associate with them or patronize their places of business, but using the force of government to silence people is wrong.
But we want a fresh set of memes!
Why should Zuckerberg testify before a UK governmental body? Facebook is for the record, Facebook UK LTD, a corporate entity in the UK. He is not one of the officers of that entity. The nearest person of interest in that UK entity is Sheryl Sandberg (Director).
If the UK parliament is interested in having a company account for its UK activities they should call the corporate officers responsible for that company in the UK. So I would call this mostly a symbolic demand, which Zuckerberg is probably right to equally symbolically turn down.
The job of a multinational CEO when shit publicly (and potentially criminally) hits the fan is pretty much to fly around and explain things.
To their company's business partners, not to foreign politicians in their local venues. Duh.
News flash: The United States is not a member of the Commonwealth.
For "historical reasons."
For those same historical reasons, Americans find it hilarious that the British Government would send a "summons" to an American.
I think the general response is going to be something along the lines of, "Shove it up your Battle of New Orleans!"
The weirdest part is the idea that Queen Elizabeth II is some sort of political figure who would get involved in this stuff! My goodness.
It doesn't matter what powers she still is granted, attempting to wield political powers is not going to happen. The British Royal Family understands very well their role in society, which is why they still have that roll, and are in fact well loves around the world for the grace and dignity with which they play it.
Not really though, because they're only agreeing on the long list of titles that are normally omitted. :)
I don't think they've ever claimed a different order of succession than was determined by the British. They wouldn't try, if a country disagreed they'd just leave the Commonwealth instead. I mean, how would they ever win that argument? "No, sorry, Britain doesn't know what their succession is." That would be silly.
They don't collectively legislate the order of succession, they collectively show continuing agreement with the things that underpin their alliance.
You expressed it more clearly, but I think that was actually my point with the throwing weight around thing.
If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
Wow. When you're a company like Facebook and the government of a nation where you do business calls you to answer questions about your part in massive privacy violations and interfering with democracy, you hop to. Or you expect to be regulated out of existence.
If the US was a Commonwealth nation, (we're not) then they could try to force the US Government to force Zuckerberg to testify, but then they'd find out that the US Government has no power to order him to, and so they'd just have to kick us out. Kicking members out of the Commonwealth is 100% of the power that the Commonwealth has over members. 100%.
Under US law, the British Parliament is outside US jurisdiction. If you wanted to the US Government to have the power to order US Persons to testify there, you would, at a minimum and before US courts would even think about saying yes, have to get the British to place their Parliament entirely under US jurisdiction! And if they did that, then there would no longer be any pressing need to have a person testify over there, they could just testify to the US Congress and the British would then have to accept those answers. So even turning their whole country over to us wouldn't make it likely that they could force testimony.
It's a slippery slope. Next month, France wants him to appear, then Spain and Italy, then Angola and China.
So what? What if he ends up going to 20 different countries? He is operating a multinational company and he needs to respect them. If he is operating within a country and doesn't show respect to that ruling body, I hope he get's punished.
I hope when the UK next considers tax laws they do remember this. There's a lot of talk about how big companies like Facebook dodge paying taxes, I hope this event is considered when the UK next looks at how to change that.
The EU is talking about it to, but they're not going to do it because they'd need support from all EU countries and something like half have already pointed out that they would never agree to something that adversarial towards the United States. The only way that the tax issues they have get solved is by international agreement about the rules of where companies pay tax.
The UK has even less power to dictate that on their own, and with Brexit looming, they don't even get to take aggressive negotiating positions on matters of trade. The UK will do what the US tells them on these issues, because the US is only going to tell them to do the same things that we all agreed on in the past! They have no power to demand changes at all, to any part of the relationship.
That's not quite correct. The only countries which have to legislate together on the succession are the 16 countries where Elizabeth is the monarch. They're a minority of the Commonwealth countries.
You don't have to make it illegal. As others have pointed out, that would just piss off your citizens.
Just levy a $10 fine for every time an inaccurate claim is posted on the platform. And a $100 fine for every violation of privacy law.
The queen doesn't have a direct political role, but she still plays a role. To many citizens, the queen's disapproval of a government action (or inaction) would carry a lot of weight.
Yes, they could block Facebook. And don't think they'd give a damn about their bad reputation. They're going to lose the next general election, so why should they care? What's in it for them? Besides, people in Britain hold privacy dear to them, we invented most of the existing data protection laws around the world. Don't expect the British to support Facebook, in a showdown.
(And, no, nobody would regard it as censorship. It is enforcing a law the British requested in the first place. To put it in perspective, many British hold privacy in the same regard as Americans hold the Second Amendment, maybe higher.)
The US doesn't matter to Britain. We regard our former colonists with derision and amusement, and very little more.
Britain is more likely to put out an international arrest warrant, which would affect Zuckerberg's freedom of movement and would not seriously affect anyone in Britain.
The most likely situation, though, is for the EU to place a $1 billion fine on Facebook, with threat of disconnection across Europe as a whole if Facebook didn't pay up. Whether they carried that out or not wouldn't matter, share prices would be hit, as would advertising revenue.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
But when they ask him silly questions like "How do you make money if you don't charge users for your service?", I can understand why he wouldn't want to waste his time flying around the world...
If you "regulate [foreign companies] out of existence [in your market]" even though you have trade agreements with that nation, you unfortunately regulate all the trade with that nation out of existence.
Do you think the UK is ready to play that game with the US? Is the Empire that strong? LOL
No, no power. Except to totally ruin your business model.
And, yes, they do have power. Failure to answer a subpoena is a criminal offence.
Which means he can't answer to the British courts, because as soon as he turned up, he'd be arrested for contempt of Parliament. Under the British system, this can be indefinite, since Britain is leaving the EU and will no longer follow EU law obligating them to limited tariffs.
He has sold personal information to agents of a hostile power that has launched multiple chemical warfare attacks against Britain. What sort of trial do you think he'd get?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It's amazing the human capacity to be grovelling slaves to the powerful. And they enjoy it.
Which is exactly why she's not going to express disapproval! It would carry weight, which is a political act itself, and it would endanger the Royal Family's position in society. Their contemporary position in society is based on being outside of politics, that doesn't just mean not running for office, it means actually remaining outside of politics. There are different "sides" in politics, and so if you say something that carries weight, all the people that disagree know you were being political!
The mouse that roared.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I don't think you have considered just what the US has. The US government can't come in and shut someone down just because they are engaging in what some call hate speech. That doesn't mean that person is free from all consequences. People have lost jobs over things that they've said. So while there is a tolerance for all forms of speech (except speech about violent overthrow of the government) that doesn't mean that the citizens/businesses are tolerant of all forms of speech.
You are correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The Statute of Westminster says,
And while my country can't decide on the order of succession of the British Monarch, the UK can't decide on the order of of succession of the Canadian Monarch and neither of us can decide on the order of succession of the Australian Monarch etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
How's life in the hypocrite lane?
Right, right, that's the whole point. The Commonwealth is a club, not a cartel. It has no powers other than something something having to do with cricket.
It does have legal binding. Parliamentary committees have the power to summons people.
Nope. Parliamentary committees have the power to request the parliament to summon people. They have no power directly. This specific committee is not even exclusively representing the British parliament, it's a joint committee investigating on behalf of 5 different governments, none of which have made a legally binding request to appear, and none of which have any juristiction over a citizen of none of the countries in question.
Then the UK Parliament must keep whatever assumptions they have about Zuck without him having a chance to defend himself or his company, and legislate accordingly.
Interesting. The UK parliament passing judgement on a person and therefore legislating away their business. That sounds rife for legal challenges. Now if they are talking about Facebook I'm sure there are people in the UK office who would happily be able to answer questions they may have.
The job of a multinational CEO when shit publicly (and potentially criminally) hits the fan is pretty much to fly around and explain things.
Not at all. The job of a CEO is to run a company. There are people in the employ of the company specifically for the purpose to fly around and explain things every time someone says please.
They can start by making an actual legal summons rather than just a pretty-please letter from a parliamentry subcommittee.
There is no such thing as "hate" speech, there is only free speech.
Don't be silly. Some speech could qualify as both, and at the same time.
How you respond to hate speech should be the discussion, not idiocy like "There is no such thing".
What's wrong with that question? I mean, the answer is, "By exploiting the personal data of our users to manipulate them" and that's exactly the fucking issue at hand.
Think facebook would be happy if the UK made a law with the fine being 10% of global revenue
The UK made a law with the fine being 2% of global revenue. But if the company doesn't resolve the underlying issues it can be levied multiple times.
I find it fascinating that you've made assumptions about the politics (and marital status) of the person to whom you replied, none of which relate even slightly to the post they made.
It doesn't make you look good. Or sane.
I think you'll find the cricket is merely an excuse for a good tea.
Indeed, I think you'll find England have paused their rampant domination of a struggling Sri Lankan side so that they can enjoy a nice mid afternoon cuppa in Galle.
It'll be nice if Jennings can get his century when they resume, although the 351 run lead is probably already enough.
That's not entirely true. As a permanent member of the UN security council, one of the world's largest economies, a nuclear power with substantial conventional force projection capabilities and a centuries old reputation the UK exerts a tremendous amount of influence.
It just doesn't derive from its position in the Commonwealth.
Britain is more likely to put out an international arrest warrant
No, they're more likely to go "Well, fuck him" and regulate Facebook anyway.
The only way that the tax issues they have get solved is by international agreement about the rules of where companies pay tax.
The UK has even less power to dictate that on their own, and with Brexit looming, they don't even get to take aggressive negotiating positions on matters of trade
You stupid ignorant fuck will you stop spewing your idiocy all over Slashdot.
For example: The UK just introduced a new tax on revenue that will apply to Facebook.
What was that? Exactly what you said they couldn't and wouldn't do? Yes.
Er that that is a legal summons. It's debatable if failure to comply by a none UK citizen is contempt of Parliament. However if it is the Serjeant at Arms is responsible for enforcement and is able to call upon the civil authorities including the police to enforce the appearance.
A UK citizen *MUST* appear if called, including coming back from abroad. A non UK citizen not so clear, but failure to attend is likely to make visiting the UK in future a risky business. It has been a very long time since someone need to be forced to appear before a select committee. However next time Zuckerberg steps on UK soil he could easily find himself arrested.
I think Zuck is in for a few firmware updates around that time anyway.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The UK can make whatever law they want. The world doesn't need to and wont listen to them. The UK simply does not have the strength to enforce their laws on mega-cap multinationals. The EU collectively barely had enough to be a player. As an individual the UK doesn't have a chance.
You may want it to be, but it's not. The UK parliament has not yet issued a legal summons for the Zuck. Not now, and not back in May. Actually the last time we debated this and everyone held up this parliamentary summons it was easy enough to quote the actual MPs who said that they would consider issuing a formal summons if he entered the UK.
But until they do, the only requests have been kindly worded letters posted through Facebook's public relations department, not even addressed to Zucker himself.
Sure Facebook can ignore UK law. They'll just have to close all their UK offices, sack all their UK staff and cease operating in the UK.
Entirely their choice.
The UK has no problem enforcing its laws on global multinationals and I'm fucking bewildered that you think otherwise.
In countries that aren't run by tin pot dictators, warrants for arrest and asset forfeiture are responses to breaking laws.
Are you really arguing for authoritarian, nationalist actions?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Was actually intended as obnoxious trolling but I forgot to hit the checkbox.
Yes, and one of the agreements to be in the club is agreeing on the order of succession before any of us change it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Now, now, don't start thinking you were being smart.
You don't comprehend the difference between passing a law that applies specifically to a company, or a group of foreign companies, and a law that applies to everybody, including British companies.
That's makes you an idiot who shouldn't even be talking down to a tree frog.
You didn't comprehend what I said, it is as simple as that. What I said was actually clear, and true, and it isn't even debatable. What the policy should be is a matter of opinion; if the UK gets to pass laws that apply specifically to one American company, or to foreign companies generally, is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of extant trade agreements that would be violated; and the US does, in actual fact, have enough power in the world to stand up to big bad UK if they tried it. No, the law you're waving your hand is not at all the sort of law you're trying to pass it off as.
Don't be such an incredible dumb-fuck, jeeze. Take your damn meds for once, grandpa.