Another needlessly strident and self-righteous article from The Guardian, that says one useful thing (the hearing is too short), followed by paragraphs of "and they are allowing this Zuck guy to SPEAK at a HEARING can you BELIEVE this? iamoutragediamoutraged."
There are so many important points to cover on this topic for a mass readership to whom most of this is new (as in: a new threat they often don't quite yet understand), such as Fakgbook merely being the current symptom and Russia/CA the current user. This has happened before and will happen again. People on a global scale need to be made familiar with key synonyms when discussing this, such as "personal data" = "private property", and "privacy" = "security", so as to put the issue in perspective, allowing for a saner debate while avoiding the stale sophistry and astroturfing that always come up (i.e. if you replace "privacy" with "security" it becomes harder for them to throw around disingenuous soviet-style phrases like "well you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide"). Any newspaper that takes the "duty to inform" seriously would spend more time on exploring the subject properly, instead of publishing this self-serving filler. It's not like there are going to be an infinite number of opening to cover this issue. This is precisely the kind of moment and topic where the media are expected to come up with informative analysis, and yet they fail to rise to the occasion.