Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mark Zuckerberg 'Not Able' To Attend International Disinformation Hearing (cnet.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the return-to-sender dept.

Mark Zuckerberg is "not able" to attend a joint disinformation hearing in London, Facebook says. "In a letter to the UK's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the company declined to say why Zuckerberg couldn't attend, but said it remains 'happy to cooperate' with the inquiry," reports CNET. "The letter also laid out some of the efforts Facebook has made over the last year in areas like fighting fake news and striving for transparency in political ads." From the report: Damian Collins, chair of the committee, is leading the charge and noted that the social network's response is "hugely disappointing." "The fact that he has continually declined to give evidence, not just to my committee, but now to an unprecedented international grand committee, makes him look like he's got something to hide," he said in an emailed statement."

Facebook declined the initial invitation from the British and Canadian politicians in October, prompting them to send another with additional signatures from their Argentinian, Australian and Irish counterparts. This came after Zuckerberg turned down a spring invitation to give evidence to the UK Parliament about Facebook's role in the Cambridge Analytica data scandal, since he'd already answered questions from the European Union's Parliament and the U.S. Congress.

35 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. He's too busy by DaveM753 · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...spreading disinformation.

    1. Re:He's too busy by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" - George Carlin

      And now those groups are bigger and better connected. Just look at the persistence of this whole anti-vaccination nonsense that stirs up every year or two.

  2. Really? by zippo01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook are disinformation. The more I read and hear about "social media" the more I agree with other that it's been more of a hindrance to society then anything. All it's done is make a handful of people rich off of other peoples suffering and privacy.

    1. Re:Really? by alvinrod · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That's a fair assessment, but no one forced anyone to sign up for a Facebook or Twitter account. It might sound well and good to ban them or something like that, but then I'd have to ask why you're not doing the same about other "hindrances to society" which might even include a few things that one or both of us enjoy. As much as you might wish to, you can't really legislate good decision making.

    2. Re: Really? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      As much as you might wish to, you can't really legislate good decision making.

      No, but Zuckerberg can still be punched in his ridiculously-ugly face.

      Just saying.

    3. Re:Really? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      While I agree. it is off topic.

      The media talking as if it is normal for US business owners to travel overseas to meet with haters is itself disinformation.

      Of course "social media" is a hindrance to society, and of course Whathisface isn't going to show up at Foreignplace.

    4. Re:Really? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      By "US business owners" you mean "American owners of businesses that operate in the UK', and by "haters" you mean "Parliament, the British legislature which is investigating how the aforementioned business was part of a campaign to undermine British democracy by ensuring the most important British constitutional decision in four decades would be undermined by misinformation."

      Zuck chooses to have Facebook operate in the UK. As long as he does, he's responsible for what it Facebook does there. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with his actions being questioned by Parliament. How DARE YOU suggest that his behavior in avoiding parliamentary scrutiny is anything other than cowardly, irresponsible, and contemptuous of democracy and the rule of law.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Really? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      They have zero interest in having a constructive discussion with Zuck. They just want him to show up so they can shit all over him while grandstanding on TV. Why should he volunteer to accept their abuse?

    6. Re:Really? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      They have a local business entity that operates in the UK.

    7. Re:Really? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook are disinformation. The more I read and hear about "social media" the more I agree with other that it's been more of a hindrance to society then anything.

      Exactly, we need to shutdown platforms that are used by people to speak. That will fix the problem.

      I'm no fan of Facebook but to attack Facebook specifically for the spread of disinformation is utterly ludicrous given that they do not create any content themselves. The solution to this problem is not censorship by closing down avenues of wide spread speech.

    8. Re:Really? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I have zero interest in having a constructive discussion with you as you clearly are just interested in "shitting all over" those investigating Facebook's behavior in Britain while grandstanding on Slashdot about it.

      You are obviously just as contemptuous of democracy and the rule of law as Zuck is.

      This isn't a debate and it doesn't matter whether British politicians are angry at Facebook or not. The fact is Facebook was the key to a major disinformation campaign that has caused severe damage to Britain and its constitution. Zuck MUST cooperate with the relevant authorities investigating it. If he doesn't, then Britain should, and must, take strong action against Facebook, including seizing their British assets and preventing them from operating in the UK.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:Really? by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, we need to shutdown platforms that are used by people to speak.

      We need to regulate platforms that decide which people speak, and which words are allowed to be spoken. "Safe Harbors" don't alter the messages they transport, or rearrange them, or change the recipients. Facebook appears to be doing those things, rather than simply being "used by people to speak". Thus the investigation.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    10. Re:Really? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Facebook appears to be doing those things, rather than simply being "used by people to speak". Thus the investigation.

      Causality fail. Facebook started doing those things in response to investigations of the use of their platform for anyone to speak.

      Remember ultimately what Facebook is: A social network. Social networks are built in a similar way on such a site as they are in real life causing group think between people of common interests. It's not Facebook spreading those messages, it's people who already believe those messages, and people who would spread them in real life as well.

  3. New euphemism? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is "not able to attend" the new phrase for "doesn't want to attend"?

    [ Asking for various Secret Service agents in Paris. :-) ]

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  4. Would you go? by BringsApples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why would anyone go sit around being grilled, if they didn't HAVE to? Seems totally unreasonable to me. I wouldn't go either - sitting around, looking like a dick.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    1. Re:Would you go? by Phil+Urich · · Score: 1

      And to the U.K., of all places. It's not like they have a huge amount of international sway these days. I'm no fan of Zuckerberg, but it's honestly not entirely unreasonable of him to decline this. Particularly when the U.K. has not been, shall we say, a particularly adroit negotiator with other power structures.

      --
      I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
    2. Re:Would you go? by Frobnicator · · Score: 2

      Agreed. He gets no benefit to attending. Even if he has an ideal performance on camera and everything works in his favor, his statements will still be misquoted, pulled out of context, twisted by many groups to fit their own agendas. More likely and typical, there will be small slips and gaffes which will appear on camera, and each one will be replayed in detail by anyone who dislikes him or the company.

      He has nothing to gain, and potentially quite a lot to lose. If he is compelled to attend and give testimony he would do best to be boring, and deflect/minimize questions as being advised not to answer them.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    3. Re:Would you go? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't go either - sitting around, looking like a dick.

      It's Zuckerberg: he looks like a dick whatever he does. So I guess it's the sitting around he objects to?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Would you go? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      ...deflect/minimize questions as being advised not to answer them.

      I don't know what protections against self-incrimination British Law provides or how broad they are. However, here in the USofA, they are only absolute in a court of law, or when being questioned during an investigation by law enforcement. That's why suspects must be read their rights before being formally questioned so that they don't incriminate themselves because they don't know enough about the law to know that they don't have to. (I gather that the police only have to read you your rights if they consider you a suspect, so if yoeu're ever questioned and thy don't, you can reasonably presume that you're currently not a suspect. And, if I read TFA correctly, this is not a formal judicial proceeding, the committee is not obligated in any way, shape or form to avoid taking his refusals into account which means that if he does have something to hide (and I'm sure he does) refusal to answer any questions ask just allow his questioners to assume that things are as bad as they want. And last, remember that IANAL so ICBW.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    5. Re:Would you go? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if they wanted me to sit through that nonsense they'd have to grant me a fancy title first.

      I'll bet if they named Zucky Lord Protector he'd show up right away.

    6. Re:Would you go? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't go either - sitting around, looking like a dick.

      It's Zuckerberg: he looks like a dick whatever he does. So I guess it's the sitting around he objects to?

      Now, now, he may be the anti-Christ, and an evil fuckhead besides, but lets not resort to body-shaming.

    7. Re:Would you go? by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking... Why bother when it's beyond obvious that it's really nothing beyond an opportunity for politicians to do some grandstanding? Because that's what happens whenever the executives of a company in the midst of a scandal is asked to come testify before a panel of politicians.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    8. Re:Would you go? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It's Zuckerberg: he looks like a dick whatever he does.

      True as that may be it doesn't mean he should flaunt it in front of the camera having every word and action carefully analysed.

      If I were a dick I wouldn't go to a public hearing where everyone is against me either, I'd put on a hoddie and go be a dick in the local bar while claiming I am someone else.

    9. Re:Would you go? by coofercat · · Score: 2

      EU governments are generally circling around US internet companies that don't pay much tax in the EU. They're going to be all the more motivated to make FBs life difficult if FB doesn't co-operate with them.

      That said, I probably wouldn't go either, but it'll turn into a PR problem for FB if they keep ducking these sorts of things.

    10. Re:Would you go? by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      sitting around, looking like Data from Star Trek.

      Fixed that for you

      You're missing the point of being a CEO. He is also the face and spokesman for his company - it is up to him to come to its defense and uphold its reputation. If there is a risk of legal action or damage to the business, you get your ass on that plane, answer questions and spread the word about the great things you're doing.

      Apples stock would take nose-dives when news of Jobs' health was declining - whether it was true or not.

      Ballmer's hot-headedness and throwing of chairs is the stuff of legend now and painted MS as the wanna-be crybaby phone maker it was. It only needed to happen once.

  5. Zuckerberg declared... by MaurizioMonge · · Score: 1

    he will certainly attend. Oh, wait as second...

  6. UK is Fed up by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    UK, he talked to your bosses in the federal government of the EU. Why should he go talk to the UK government (a state in the federated EU) any more than he should go talk to New Jersey or Maryland?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:UK is Fed up by tsa · · Score: 1

      To get the public's interest away from Brexit for a while.

      --

      -- Cheers!

  7. The difference is... by Arzaboa · · Score: 1

    ...that in the town square where people talk and post notices, you can mostly avoid the trolls. Local governments have no shortage of laws dictating what you can say, where and when. You also typically don't have people from foreign countries and lobbyists from X company standing on soap boxes shouting at you every time you turn around in your local town.

    Mark Z. Should be talking to anyone he can. For the sake of people that use this stuff, I would like to see Facebook stick to just ads for products and services. There is absolutely no reason that political ads have to be shown to people on Facebook. Isn't the entire service to connect friends and families? How does this fall under thta? Let people review these "call to arms" ads, under some link on ones Facebook page, and see how many people wantonly click on them at that point.

    I get that he already talked with other governments and he's worried he'll set himself up, but at this point, the fact he hasn't cleaned the place up speaks volumes.

    --
    My regrets are for the people - Chris Kyle

    1. Re:The difference is... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      ...that in the town square where people talk and post notices, you can mostly avoid the trolls. Local governments have no shortage of laws dictating what you can say, where and when.

      Another good reason not to visit Foreignplace to meet the haters; they don't even understand Freezepeach!

  8. eurogitmo by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    Zuck is probably worried that they will follow the Soviet American playbook. As soon as his plane lands they'll kidnap him and drag him off to EuroGitmo for some enhanced interrogation.

    1. Re:eurogitmo by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      The EuroGitmo is only used by the CIA anyway.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  9. Facebook Abstainers Could Be Labeled Suspicious by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    no one forced anyone to sign up for a Facebook or Twitter account.

    True, even if something is a condition of finding a job (see "Facebook Abstainers Could Be Labeled Suspicious" from July 2012), it isn't "forced". But the alternative might be starvation.

  10. British police caution by tepples · · Score: 1

    The British counterpart to the American right to remain silent is weaker. It includes this clause encouraging a defendant to reveal his hand earlier: "But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court." Those under arrest have the right to free legal advice, but unlike the American Miranda warning, the British police caution appears to lack standard phrasing for this (source).

  11. Because EU isn't a sovereign state, and Brexit by tepples · · Score: 1

    Why should he go talk to the UK government (a state in the federated EU) any more than he should go talk to New Jersey or Maryland?

    Two reasons:

    1. The EU is currently organized more like the United States under the Articles of Confederation than like the US under its present Constitution. The central EU government doesn't have nearly as much power over member states' relationships with non-member states as the US has over the several states.
    2. British secession from the European Union is underway.