I would feel much better about being a google user if they were standing up strongly for the original "do no evil" ethos. Where is Page indeed? It really seems like the ethical stance has faded away.
Avoiding the cameras is the best way for Page & Co to escape politically dangerous questions like "Isn't Google actively censoring queries and web content in China?" and "Where else is Google doing this? In India? In the UK? In the USA?"
I can see why Google sent a lawyer instead of Page.
From a PR point of view Google has handled this whole privacy debacle very well. By keeping a very low profile on privacy, they’ve made sure Facebook takes the heat. Facebook’s horrendous management of the issue has also allowed Google to slide under the radar on the topic. Generally I think Page is doing the right thing by keeping a low public profile.
Not showing up here was the opposite of keeping a low profile though.
This is the first article I came across that was about Google's absence. Every other article about the hearings talked about what Sandberg and Dorsey said.
I am unconvinced about that. If it was the case that CA actually was able to do the things the media claimed they didn and affect people like that, FB would be in an even better position to affect people which means FB shares should have risen not fallen. We do not live in the world created by the media about the capabilities of CA not even close. But as they say. The market can stay irrational longer than you can st…
I don't think it was about CA capabilities per se, but the privacy blowback which followed. The issue became mainstream and gave rise to the "Delete Facebook" movement which regular folks as well as celebrities[1] piled onto. It's fair to discuss the faddish nature of the #delete movements, but I don't see any positive angle in it for FB. It also forced FB to overhaul their platform, most notably applying larger rest…
I don't think I agree.
This wasn't anything new for most people who knew just a little bit about how FB worked for 3rd parties.
What changed was Trump. Had this been Hillary we wouldn't been talking about it at all and I am pretty sure FB wouldn't have been called to the hearing.
So I would say it's mostly a media driven thing but of course don't have any final proof. Just pretty sure it wasn't the privacy part that was the problem but rather Trump.
It's kind-of Congress' own fault here. They so often have these... events, that are mostly for show and for the politicians to grandstand making them seem tough to voters but really have very little substance. I doubt any meaningful policy ever comes of them. Doesn't everybody know by now that they're grilling these CEO's in front of the cameras and begging them for money behind the cameras? "outrage" indeed.
Completely disagree. I don’t know how you could say that. Business leaders have to answer for their companies actions, and senate hearings is one way we have of them doing that. And as wybiral said, it was a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. Maybe I’m jaded, but your response reminds me of those from Theranos employees on this very forum when it was criticised.
Personally I'm interpreting a no show as a vote of no confidence.
And given the footage I've seen of late from such hearings, I too have no confidence in their abilities.
One thing this article completely neglects to mention: Larry has vocal chord paralysis and so has difficulty speaking. https://www.wired.com/2013/05/larry-page-vocal-chords/ This could have something to do with why he's reluctant to do a lot of public speaking nowadays. [UPDATE] I was wrong: the article does mention this, I just missed it. I would delete this comment but I can't since it has been replied to.
While it's true (sibling comments) that this is indeed mentioned in the article, it's well into the body, about two-thirds down. This strikes me as extremely relevant information: Page acts "as if [he] had only so many words left to speak." (ftfa) Why would he waste his breath, if it's actually limited? The mistake here wasn't in Page not showing up--it was in _nobody_ showing up.
That's not on Google - as the article states, Google offered multiple other officials, but that was declined, they wanted Page or nothing and so got nothing.
It is interesting that Larry Page stays out of the spotlight so much. Everyone knows who Mark Zuckerberg is, but many probably couldn't tell you who the CEO of Google/Alphabet is.
I imagine if you asked most people who the CEO of Alphabet is, they'd ask "What's Alphabet?"
> “What I didn’t see in the last year was a strong central voice about how [Google’s] going to operate on these issues that are societal and less technical,” That's not careful phrasing when talking about a man with paralysed vocal chords.
This sounds like being offended purely for the purpose of being offended. I doubt even the subject of the article himself would have caught that.
Who are these guys thinking they can make anyone show up and get grilled by a bunch of politicians looking to score some easy points? That’s offensive. That Dorsey and Sandberg showed up shows that they are desperate for attention or approval. God Bless America where the government can’t force you to waste your valuable time talking to Marco Rubio.
