It was a sorry show.
Senators and congressmen asked countless questions of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, skewering him hypocritically for doing the same sort of things politicians do.
If history is a guide, the main intent of the whole show is the corrupt one of forcing Facebook to play ball more than it currently is: hiring more lobbyists, cutting more campaign checks, and canoodling more with Congress. Judging by history, we also suspect Facebook will play the game, and consumers and would-be competitors will be the losers.
What upsets people about Facebook, especially in light of Cambridge Analytica’s misuse of data that spurred these congressional hearings, is that Facebook knows and shares more information about its users than the ordinary user would have guessed.
Consumer aggravation about this is not unreasonable. There’s a good case to be made that Facebook hasn’t done enough to help users understand how the data they share on the website gets shared and sold to third parties. But members of Congress don’t have the best credibility on this matter.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., tried to make a point about privacy by asking Zuckerberg to name the hotel where he was staying. Touche. Zuckerberg was far too polite to ask Durbin what he does with the information he gathers from people who visit DickDurbin.com, the senator’s campaign webpage. The webpage, you see, is equipped with a Facebook tracking pixel.
That pixel tracks the actions you take on DickDurbin.com. If you take an action on the website, Facebook and Durbin know. “This way, you’ll know when a customer takes an action, and will be able to reach that customer again through future Facebook ads.”
To Durbin’s credit, his website explains in addition to any information it gathers from visitors, “We may obtain information about you from outside sources and add it to or combine it with the information we collect through this site.”
Durbin is not extraordinary in this. Much of the political fundraising industry is built around buying and selling lists. Probably every senator and congressman who questioned Zuckerberg has put his or her name on a “sign this petition” email that was used to build a list which in turn is shared with other candidates and rented to whomever will pay the fee. Yet these lawmakers all pretended to be shocked — shocked! — that information sharing was going on.
The real problem with the Facebook trial wasn’t the hypocrisy. It certainly wasn’t tough talk to Zuckerberg. He’s a grownup, and Facebook is a powerful business, and so tough talk is fine. The real problem was this whole show was, by all appearances, a cynical, bipartisan, and bicameral ploy to ensnare Facebook in the Washington swamp, helping politicians extract wealth and power from the company in exchange for political protection.
We saw this show 20 years ago, when Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told tech executives, “If you want to get involved in business, you should get involved in politics.” Dragging tech executives before cameras and asking angry questions sends a message: Now that you’re making tons of money, you’d better play ball with us. Congress did this to hedge funds last decade, too, and they immediately ramped up their lobbying (hiring congressmen and top aides) and their political giving.
It’s mutually beneficial, as the big businesses profit from the protective regulations. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., didn’t try to hide the coziness this week when he asked Zuckerberg if he wanted to be regulated. “If it’s the right regulation, yes,” Zuckerberg said. “Would you submit to us some proposed regulations?” Graham asked.
Politicians pretend they don’t like data harvesting and sharing, but they love it, they do it, and they depend on it to maintain power. Politicians (Democrats, particularly) pretend they don’t like Big Business deploying lobbyists and PAC money to Capitol Hill, but they do everything they can to maximize it.
This week’s Facebook trials were a cynical display. Facebook doesn’t need your sympathy. But the politicians do deserve your scorn.
