Lawmakers from nine parliaments around the world met Tuesday in London to discuss the problem of disinformation on Facebook.
But there was seat at the table that remained starkly vacant. Behind the nameplate “Mark Zuckerberg” was an empty chair.
Zuckerbergthe inaugural session of the International Grand Committee on Disinformation, which took place at the UK’s Parliament. His decision irked the 24 politicians in attendance, some of who had flown from as far as South America and Asia to attend.
It’s far from the first time the Facebook CEO has been conspicuous by his absence this year.
When thecame to light in March, Zuckerberg failed to address the scandal for multiple days — either with his own employees, or in public. The social network chief was nowhere to be seen and cries of “where’s Zuck?” echoed around the world and trended on social media. Even though Zuckerberg has since spoken publicly about the scandal, including testifying before the US Congress, there are still many politicians who say he hasn’t answered for his company’s failures.
Zuckerberg rejected multiple invitations to come to London and provide evidence to UK Parliament’s fake-new inquiry over the past year. He also declined opportunities to appear via web link. The Facebook boss has spoken twice publicly in Europe this year — once for a short sessionand once (a conference organized by a PR agency) in Paris, where he was not asked a single direct question about Cambridge Analytica.
His absence at Tuesday’s session sparked outrage among the politicians in attendance, who repeatedly referred to his failure to attend throughout the day.
Richard Allan, who is Facebook’s policy director for Europe and also sits as a British politician in the House of Lords, sat in the chair alongside Zuckerberg’s empty seat. (Allan is the third Facebook executive to give evidence this year to Parliament, following evidence sessions featuring UK Public Policy Director Simon Milner and CTO Mike Schroepfer. Both left the committee underwhelmed by their answers, and were required to follow up on many points.)
Belgian politician Nele Lijnen asked Allan if he knew the Flemish phrase “sending your cat.” “It means not showing up,” she told him. “You are sitting next to the cat,” she said, nodding to Zuckerberg’s empty seat. Other politicians took a less humorous approach to addressing Zuckerberg’s absence.
“In this room we represent over 400 million people, and to not have your CEO sit in front of us is an offense to all of them,” Canadian member of Parliament Bob Zimmer told Allan. In addition to Canada, Belgium and the UK, the other countries represented were Argentina, Brazil, France, Ireland, Latvia and Singapore.
“Who gave Mr. Zuckerberg advice to blow off this committee?” asked Canadian politician Charlie Angus. Angus added that democracy had been “upended by frat boy billionaires from California,” while citizens were distracted by apps and phones.
“Were you sent because, in the whole of the Facebook empire, you were believed to be best placed to answer this committee’s questions, or you were best placed to defend your company?” said British member of Parliament Brendan O’Hara to Allan. “Who decided you were the best person to come?”
“I volunteered myself,” Allan replied, describing the extent to which he’d been following the disinformation discussions in parliaments around the world. “This is the stuff I work on,” he said. “Our working assumption was this is the stuff that you wanted.”
This didn’t satisfy the committee, and every time Allan said that he did not know the answer to a question or that he would follow up, the lawmakers reiterated that this was proof they needed Zuckerberg to attend.
“These are decisions that are made at a level that it appears you don’t operate at within Facebook,” British member of Parliament Clive Efford told Allan. “Which is why we need to speak to Mr. Zuckerberg.”
Battle of wills
In a press conference following the session, Zimmer said that he believed Facebook’s strategy had been to deflect, and that Allan had been successful in doing so on the company’s behalf. “He’s weathered the storm and he’s taken one for Mr. Zuckerberg,” he said.
Chair of disinformation committee, British MP Damian Collins, said that he felt Allan had failed to answer questions satisfactorily and said he isn’t giving up on getting Zuckerberg in front of the committee.
Of all the voices calling for Zuckerberg to appear in the UK,. He has repeatedly expressed dismay whenever Zuckerberg declines to attend. Right now there is something of a standoff between the pair, and Zuckerberg doesn’t appear have the upper hand.
At the present moment the Facebook chief cannot visit the UK for any reason without also agreeing to appear before Parliament. If he does attempt to visit the UK, he serjeant-at-arms. It seems unlikely that Zuckerberg would take this risk, which means that unless he gives in, or unless the risk subsides, he must avoid the UK completely.the minute he touches down in the country. This could involve the embarrassment of being escorted to Westminster by Parliament’s
The same is true of Canada, where if Zuckerberg sets foot in the country but refuses to appear before politicians, he may be held in contempt of Parliament.
Unfortunately for him, it doesn’t look like the scrutiny will subside anytime soon. The UK’s parliamentary fake-news inquiry has concluded its evidence gathering, but it’s not decreasing pressure on the Facebook chief to appear. If anything, the pressure is ramping up. By bringing in other governments from around the world, the voices calling for Zuckerberg to appear are only getting louder.
“Ultimately the buck stops with Zuck,” Collins said in the press conference. “These issues aren’t going to go away and the pressure will continue to grow.”
CNET’s Holiday Gift Guide: The place to find the best tech gifts for 2018.
Cambridge Analytica: Everything you need to know about Facebook’s data mining scandal.