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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
Because despite trying their hardest to appear so, Parliament is not in fact a total bunch of muppets and do in fact know who is in charge of facebook.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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)