shock news - Zuckerberg won't answer UK questions?

[Zak33]

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-fa...-idUKKBN1H31QL

how is this news?

A bloke who's infamous for not turning up to any of his own meetings, won't come and answer questions of a Parliament in another country, while he has a ..slightly larger country of his own, with his own countrymen to try to placate

how is it news? I mean.. I dislike FB immensely, but this isn't news.

He's worth more than all of them put together, x10 and they think he's gonna come and be grillied in the manner that others have subjected themselves? Naive?
And he's got enough staff on large enough salaries... who know what is going on, and who frankly probably know MORE of what is going in, to come answer.

Maybe we should get Tim Berners Lee to go too.. explain what on EARTH he thought he was doing, inventing this disaster of a world wide web thingy....

and my mum.. she should go, cos she once saw my Sister use Facebook too.....

and the ... oh I give up

/rant off

[jimbouk]

Well there's plenty of non-news out there, such as:

Theresa May swaps Blackberry for iPhone

Back to the subject, he was invited, he said no. Maybe the bigger news is that the committee chairman said it was "astonishing", which as you've pointed out it really isn't given his track record and even the statements on why he doesn't attend every meeting he's invited to. Maybe he'll come to my birthday party...

[scaryjim]

I actually spent some time with Damian Collins (chair of DCMS committee and the bloke who "demanded" Zuckerberg appear to answer questions) a few years back. He was a nice enough bloke, but it strikes me that he was probably a big fish in a smallish pond back in "the day", and perhaps has an over-inflated sense of his own importance. In fact, he rather reminded me of some of the blokes from the school rugby team - wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that he played in his youth...

[Saracen]

Well, I'm shocked at the news.

Shocked that an MP, even a sub-committee chairnan, should be shocked that a foreign multi-billionaire should decline to submit himself to the ritual humiliation, nainly for the purposes of feeding their own egos, that these grandstanding MP's usually turn hearings into.

I don't know who else is sad enough to ever watch these, but I often watch the more controversial ones, and have come to the conclusion that the often nasty, even spiteful tone of many questions serves the sole purpose of out-nastying the other committee members to get the author's perfornance selected as the puece for the evening news, or Newsnight.

Well, Mr Collins, I wouldn't accept your "invitation" either, unless it was accompanied by a sub-poena, and if it was, I'd be accompanied by enough lawyers and a surprisingly poor memory. Well, I'm getting old and the the first thing go go is your .... erm ..... umm ... excuse me, Mr Chairman, I need to consult my lawyers ...... oh yes, the first thing to go is memory. What was the question again?

[Zak33]

I don't know who else is sad enough to ever watch these, but I often watch the more controversial ones, and have come to the conclusion that the often nasty, even spiteful tone of many questions serves the sole purpose of out-nastying the other committee members to get the author's perfornance selected as the puece for the evening news, or Newsnight.

THAT IS IT IN A NUTSHELL.

they're just crap throwing sessions- worthy of scorn

[jim]

I would like to see him answer some questions on it, but agree that there's no incentive whatsoever for him to appear.

If we were in a position to fine Facebook $10bn then perhaps he'd consider subjecting himself to humiliation, but we aren't. The reality of it is that he can send a very senior alternative rep, who is just as qualified to talk on the subject, and then the questions and answers won't make every newspaper on the planet.

He'd have to be crazy to accept right now.

[peterb]

Well, I'm shocked at the news.

Shocked that an MP, even a sub-committee chairnan, should be shocked that a foreign multi-billionaire should decline to submit himself to the ritual humiliation, nainly for the purposes of feeding their own egos, that these grandstanding MP's usually turn hearings into.

I don't know who else is sad enough to ever watch these, but I often watch the more controversial ones, and have come to the conclusion that the often nasty, even spiteful tone of many questions serves the sole purpose of out-nastying the other committee members to get the author's perfornance selected as the puece for the evening news, or Newsnight.

Well, Mr Collins, I wouldn't accept your "invitation" either, unless it was accompanied by a sub-poena, and if it was, I'd be accompanied by enough lawyers and a surprisingly poor memory. Well, I'm getting old and the the first thing go go is your .... erm ..... umm ... excuse me, Mr Chairman, I need to consult my lawyers ...... oh yes, the first thing to go is memory. What was the question again?

Somewhat harsh - some of the select committees have done good work holding some people's feet to the fire - Green of BHS notoriety to think of one, and there have been others who have had good reason to squirm. The Green inquisition was on behalf of the pensioners of BHS and I was pleased tp see our elected representatives speaking up for those who otherwise might not have had a vote.

They are after all committees to find facts are are understandably inquisitorial - and if a witness is being evasive, the they will be adversarial - not unlike a court.

[Saracen]

Somewhat harsh - some of the select committees have done good work holding some people's feet to the fire - Green of BHS notoriety to think of one, and there have been others who have had good reason to squirm. The Green inquisition was on behalf of the pensioners of BHS and I was pleased tp see our elected representatives speaking up for those who otherwise might not have had a vote.

They are after all committees to find facts are are understandably inquisitorial - and if a witness is being evasive, the they will be adversarial - not unlike a court.

Courts have judges to ensure professional behaviour from advocates where the advocates are explicitly intended to be adversarial.

Select committees are supposed to be questioning witnesses, not giving inquisition to suspects, and the chairman is supposed to keep order, yet often, the chairman is the worst grand-standing primadonba of the lot.

As I said, if they "invited" me as a witness, it's a party I'd decline. And if that's how they treat people they "invite", I'm surprised any private individuals go.

[Corky34]

Sekect committees are supposed to be questioning witnesses, not giving inquisition to suspects, and the chairman is supposed to keep order, yet often, the chairman is the worst grand-standing primadonba of the lot.

Not really, they're meant to be gathering evidence and if someone chooses to provide that orally and is then evasive when the evidence leads to further questions it's only right to push them for answers, committees are more akin to police investigations than courts.

[Zak33]

Somewhat harsh - some of the select committees have done good work holding some people's feet to the fire - Green of BHS notoriety to think of one, and there have been others who have had good reason to squirm. The Green inquisition was on behalf of the pensioners of BHS and I was pleased tp see our elected representatives speaking up for those who otherwise might not have had a vote.

They are after all committees to find facts are are understandably inquisitorial - and if a witness is being evasive, the they will be adversarial - not unlike a court.

I have to agree with Saracen... getting results from peopel like Green can be done in many ways. Watching the mud slinging is just TV Click Bait.

Moral high ground has a part to play - there, if nowhere

if they choose not to reply, slap a fine on them anyway. If they act cocky and try to side step, ask again and then slap a fine on them.
It's no different to bringing up a naughty child.. keep taking the toys away, keep sitting them on the naughty step and everytime they get up put them back down on it.. remove more toys... and do it calmly.

Do it ALL in a calm manner and will finally sink in with no animosity on the other side - lesson learned

[Saracen]

Not really, they're meant to be gathering evidence and if someone chooses to provide that orally and is then evasive when the evidence leads to further questions it's only right to push them for answers, committees are more akin to police investigations than courts.

There's a difference between pushing, and the snide, patronising, morally superior and often downright offensive way some MPs, and even some committee chairme... sorry, chairpersons, "push" those who are there as witnesses. There have been been occasions when witnesses, who are there voluntarily, remember, have invited those MPs to repeat their claims, assertions and even accusations, outside Parliament where "privilege" doesn't apply but defamatoon laws do. Have those MPs chosen to risk it? No.

They are more than willing to sit, apparently in judgement, protected by privilege, when they KNOW they are being televised and that a nice, juicy "robust" line of questioning is likely to end up on the evening news.

It's not a wuestioning of witnesses so much as a Star Chamber.

Clearly, not all MPs, not all committees and not all chairpersons, but way more than enough to be an isolated incident. If you haven't seen examples, over quite some years, I'd suggest you haven't been watching much.

Oh, and by the way, it's not limited to select committees. US Senators and Representatives in Congressional committees are, if anything, much, MUCH worse. If I were a UK billionaire, there's similarly no way I would subject myself to their often obnoxious ritual humiliation either, and certainly not voluntarily.

Fortunately, I'm not a billionaire.


Ummm, that last bit didn't sound quite right.

[Corky34]

I'll take your word for it that some chairs go to far but they are elected by the house and holding those in power, not just in government but in the wider world, to account is a good thing IMO, if a chair acts in a way that reflects badly on parliament then I'd expect our MPs to choose a different chair, i guess what I'm saying is sure they're not perfect but i think we're better off with them than without.

[peterb]

I'll take your word for it that some chairs go to far but they are elected by the house and holding those in power, not just in government but in the wider world, to account is a good thing IMO, if a chair acts in a way that reflects badly on parliament then I'd expect our MPs to choose a different chair, i guess what I'm saying is sure they're not perfect but i think we're better off with them than without.

I would tend to agree with that, they are elected to represent those who may have no other voice. Cases only come to court if there is a reasonable chance of success on the admissible evidence.

While it’s true that some MPs have abused their Parliamentary privelige, it is a relatively Razer occurrence and on balance I would suggest more good has come from the select committee system than harm.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I think people need to be more worried about how firms like Cambridge Analytica are undermining our democracy,as long as someone pays them enough,and how they had access to MOD information too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43581892

Documents shared by Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie spell out how parent company SCL Group tried to influence elections worldwide.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...od-information

Cambridge Analytica parent company had access to secret MoD information

http://uk.businessinsider.com/cambri...ticians-2018-3

Channel 4 News secretly filmed Cambridge Analytica's CEO, Alexander Nix, offering to entrap politicians with bribes and sex workers.
The bombshell investigation also shows Cambridge Analytica's executives acknowledging that it discreetly seeded compromising videos of politicians on the internet and helped them go viral.
Cambridge Analytica has pushed back on allegations that it uses entrapment tactics. In a statement, Nix said he played along with the undercover reporter, who he thought was a client, to spare them from embarrassment.
The company was recently suspended by Facebook over a huge data scandal.

The question is if we can use them,who ELSE has??

If they exist,what other companies that do the same,haven't been caught??

The implications are very worrying as someone rich enough or even nation states,can use companies like Cambridge Analytica to basically influence things.

Who needs spies when you can pay a private company to do your dirty work??

[Saracen]

Well, try to influence things like elections. Or perhaps even 'claim' to be able to.

It's not the first time we've seen someone big themselves or their abilities up to sell stuff. Even I've seen it, on aplicant's CV's.

Nor, in CV's anyway, is it new. In my first post-uni CV, I mentioned that I was a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company. About half a dozen of my mates said "Oooh, good one. I'll add that". The fiffrrence was .... I really was a member. They thought it'd look good.

So .... my first interview rolls around, with a senior partner of chartered accountancy firm, and his first question was "So you're a Shakespearean actor?"

"No, no, " says I. "I'm a theatre-going member, not an actor. .... Though, I wish ...." I added wistfully. "Sadly, more enthusiasm than talent".

"Right." He said .... "so what was the last play you saw?" I told him, and he asked what I thought of it. "Well, " says I, "I was sceptical because it was modern, but concluded it was brillusntly done. Set in the 1930s. So he questioned me about that gor several minutes, before admitting he, too, was a member, had seen the same play and shared my conclusion.

We then nattered like old friends for an hour and a half, called for coffee and biscuits, then he said that as interview slots were 15 minutes he'd probably better deal with the backlog, and the offer letter eould be in the post first thing tomorrow.

Two of my buddies interviewed with the same partner. They decided to remove the RST from their CV's.

Anyway, back on track, we KNOW these firms (FB, Google, etc) are harvesting any data they can. They are the big problem, as without them, Cambridge Analytica (et. al.) have little to analyse.

We know what CA are alleged to have claimed they can do, though of course some of those asserting that have an axe to grind, but what we don't have, that I'm aware of, is any significant evidence that they can do what they claim.

So id it real? Or merely an exaggerated sales pitch? To early to tell, IMHO.

[johnroe]

I actually find that if someone tries to sway me on an argument, let's say politically, then I'm more than likely to question their motives. I don't think the general populace are stupid, and I don't think they like being forced by fake propaganda, hence Project Fear during the referendum had the reverse effect.

So it's alright pointing out what data gathering and analysing companies are doing, but there's a massive difference between that and people actually shifting their vote. Just like when the Guardian and BBC pump out their endless propaganda and speculation(if you see the word 'may', as in they may have done that, or they may have had access.....it's probably BS), it just makes me sceptical of these media propaganda outlets.

I think MZ and a few other of the tech billionaires see themselves as beyond national limits, they have a digital empire with it's base in Silicon Valley. FB isn't allowing 3rd party data collection.