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

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.

Comments

He's too busy

[DaveM753]

...spreading disinformation.

Really?

[zippo01]

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.

New euphemism?

[fahrbot-bot]

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

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

Would you go?

[BringsApples]

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.

Re:Would you go?

[Frobnicator]

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.

Re:Would you go?

[serviscope_minor]

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?

Re:Would you go?

[coofercat]

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.

Facebook Abstainers Could Be Labeled Suspicious

[tepples]

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.