[chosenbreed]

I might be missing something here but my thinking is that Google Inc/Alphabet is bigger than Larry Page. If for whatever reason he was not able to attend he could have sent a representative chosen from among the senior executives. It seems that neither his attendance nor Google's participation in the whole thing was not mandatory

[sidibe]

They offered their legal guy who is also one of the main leaders at Google and is probably the right person to talk about this but Congress refused. They want figureheads.

[theDoug]

This is correct, they rejected anyone but top officials.

https://www.law.com/2018/09/04/after-senate-intelligence-com...

(Disclosure: I work at Google)

[deusofnull]

Of course they only wanted the senior flesh.

I'm not trying to dunk on Congress too hard, but so much of their public hearings are about the spectacle of gov officials holding "someone" accountable.

And it's bipartisan too, the spectacle.

The Dems were looking to further the Russia election manipulation spectacle, and I'd guess Repubs were hoping to advance their narratives of "shadowbanning" and ideological search results bias.

[DFHippie]

To be fair to Congress, their job is really to shape events in the public interest. Considering these hearings to be pure fact-finding is a category error. If they browbeat a celebrity, this shapes events in multiple ways: it affects fundraising, it affects the behavior of the individual browbeaten and those in this individual's orbit, it affects the public narrative, and if affects actions at the voting booth. And that is only the beginning. It is an extremely complicated game with numerous players and feedback loops. You can call it "grandstanding", as though it's purposeless and ineffectual, but obviously it isn't, and really this is their job. They want to speak to certain people because they calculate that this will give them leverage to shape events in a certain way.

This is how the sausage is made.

[deusofnull]

Certainly. One name for that for that entire phenomenon you're describing the functioning of is 'The Spectacle'.

I don't mean just the dictionary definition of spectacle, rather I'm referencing the Situationist + Critical Theory concept of The Spectacle. Guy Debord's "The Society of the Spectacle" is a wild piece of thought.

It's an absolute tome, but essentially society is now mediated by social relations of spectacle which are symbols / signs / abstractions of actual material relations. And like you're saying, politicians play a huge role in wielding spectacle towards their material goals. Some of this might seem strangely familiar / redundant but that just speaks to the impact Situationist thinking has had on our conception of society and culture.

Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle (Paris, 1967). http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/1.htm

[RIMR]

Hey, at least one of you in this thread is disclosing your employment with Google as you criticize the Government for demanding answers from your employer's top executives on matters of Foreign actors threatening our Democracy.

[wjp3]

Which should tell folks what kind of hearing this was.

[oihoaihsfoiahsf]

No need to guess. You can look at the treatment Jack and Sheryl received. A bunch of ignorant, annoyed blowhards basically talked at them for a few hours, accomplishing nothing and expanding the pool of useful knowledge exactly zero.

[chooseaname]

> A bunch of ignorant, annoyed blowhards...

The very ones that the citizens _voted_ for.

[oihoaihsfoiahsf]

The citizens might be idiots, or the human social system might be so broken such that no matter who you vote for they are game-theoretically forced to behave this way. Whatever the case may be, I don't blame Page for declining to inflict that experience on himself.

[close04]

It makes sense to get the person at the top. They are ultimately responsible/accountable for things. They are well prepared in advance so why not go for them?

[mcny]

> It makes sense to get the person at the top. They are ultimately responsible/accountable for things. They are well prepared in advance so why not go for them?

What's the point? Is anyone actually responsible/accountable? Did anything change at Wells Fargo? Equifax?

Wells Fargo blackballed employees who make $35k a year. The CEO testified in Congress and took his golden parachute.

I am trying to understand what responsibility and accountability mean.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?415547-1/ceo-john-stumpf-testi...

Previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12696494

[adventured]

> Did anything change at Wells Fargo?

Wells Fargo is under direct supervision of the Federal Reserve, and is locked into a growth ban, because of what it did. They've also paid billions of dollars in fines so far, with more coming.

> The [Wells Fargo] CEO testified in Congress and took his golden parachute.

You're making that up. There was no golden parachute, their CEO forfeited nearly all of his compensation for 2016 and was forced out of the company without severence or golden parachute.

"Wells Fargo CEO Stumpf to forfeit $41 million in unvested equity amid independent probe"

"The bank also said on Tuesday that Carrie Tolstedt, the former head of the community banking division, had left the company and would not receive a severance payment. She forfeited about $19 million in outstanding unvested equity awards"

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/27/wells-fargo-ceo-stumpf-to-fo...

[tptacek]

That's not how it works. When they called Wells Fargo to testify, they didn't allow them to send a risk or compliance officer; they subpoena'd Tim Sloan, the CEO of the bank.

[394549]

> They offered their legal guy who is also one of the main leaders at Google and is probably the right person to talk about this but Congress refused. They want figureheads.

Why is this a problem? The CEO is the public face of the company. If Congress wants to question the company about serious issues, it shouldn't settle for a little-known subordinate who has much less authority or accountability for the decisions Congress wants to ask about.

[dragonwriter]

> Why is this a problem?

It's not a problem other than the fact that it is a clear signal that the purpose of the invitation is public spectacle, not soliciting testimony whose content had a substantive legislative purpose.

Another clear signal of that is the use of invitations rather than subpoenas, followed by dramatic complaints about the invitation being declined when the person best able to address the substance (though less attractive as a PR punching bag) was offered.

Another clear signal of that is the empty chair theatrics.

And if people learned to recognize these signals of unseriousness, then unserious approaches will become less effective, and if Congress wants to be seen to be addressing an issue, they’ll need to actually seriously address it.

[joering2]

That and also they learnt their lesson: first Facebook hearings were very frustrating when all they heard was: “I dont know answer to this questio, and I will ask Mr. Zickerberg [when I see him next time] and will let you know [when in reality I will never see you again because if FB is ever invited again we will send another top exec]”.

I for once appload congressmen/women for not falling for this sinple trick again.

[chosenbreed]

Okay...so they didn't fall that trick...but I get the impression that all they want is the opportunity to grill the top executive. The best that can happen is that said executive will apologize, prostrate, etc and the show goes on...

[dragonwriter]

> but I get the impression that all they want is the opportunity to grill the top executive

Of that's all they wanted, they'd issue a subpoena for the top executive. That removes choice.

What they want is, in order of preference:

(1) Both ritual validation of the legitimacy of their efforts via the voluntary participation of top executives combined with the increased media attention for their showboating that comes with having the top executive in the hot seat, or, failing that

(2) The opportunity to showboat about the firms decision not to send the top executive.

If they were interested in substance, they would accept the firm sending the most appropriate person to address the actual issue, and if they felt the offered person wasn't the right person, they'd issue subpoenas to compel the testimony of the people who are really needed. But substantive answers aren't what the hearing is about.

[dragonwriter]

> They want figureheads.

They also want to to get either the ritual validation of voluntary submission or the opportunity for theatrical (but fundamentally dishonest) complaint about non-compliance; if it was really important to have the specific witnesses there, they would forgo both and issue compulsory legislative subpoenas, which is fully within their power.

By not doing so, they are, in fact, saying they don't consider the testimony of the invited witness all that important to the legislative function, so the theatrics around the decision not to accept the voluntary invitation are clearly unwarranted.

[wjoe]

Agreed. It feels like this is two separate stories really.

Maybe Larry Page is a recluse, an eccentric, a technical thinker, a background figure, or however you want to describe him. I can understand why someone who started out writing a search engine in their garage might not be the type who feels comfortable doing public speaking in front of the Senate.

But we should disconnect the man from the company. Google certainly does need to be held to account, and does need to answer these questions, both to the public and to governments. At best, it's an organizational failure of Google to not allocate someone from upper management on this - it should really be Pichai, who is really the day-to-day boss at Google. At worst it's a deliberate act of the company to avoid questioning.

The attention shouldn't be directed at one man not showing up to answer questions, but the huge company who doesn't feel that it's necessary to send any of it's senior management to answer these questions.

Edit: Seems that Google did offer to send a senior legal executive, and the senate refused them. Point still stands that we need to separate the company from the man, but perhaps the senate is just as focused on the "big names" as the media.

[gnode]

> Seems that Google did offer to send a senior legal executive, and the senate refused them.

This just goes to show how much of a charade these hearings are.

[394549]

> This just goes to show how much of a charade these hearings are.

Literally no one in the public is going to pay attention or give a shit about hearings where Congress questions lower level executives with little to no decision-making authority.

It's not a charade to want to question the one guy in the company who unquestionably has authority over whatever decisions Congress wants to ask about. If you think they should settle for talking to a new exec with no authority, why not expect them to settle for talking to an intern reading prepared statements?

[tensor]

They are looking for information, they should question the person who can answer those the best. They are not compelling the company to make any decisions/changes and if they were it would be through legal action anyways, not talking to a CEO.

This is pure grandstanding for the purpose of public spectacle. Good on Page for telling them where to stuff it. If congress wants to take these issues seriously they should drop the politics and show and start being serious.

[394549]

> They are looking for information, they should question the person who can answer those the best.

I disagree. Calling the CEO to testify puts the chief decision-maker on notice that these are issues he needs to focus on. Settling for a minor executive won't have the same influence on the CEO. Secondly, a minor executive has much more ability to dodge and evade, since he can legitimately claim "this isn't my area," "wasn't my decision," etc. Also, like I said before, settling for interviewing minor players doesn't attract the public's attention to the issue.

> If congress wants to take these issues seriously they should drop the politics

Congress is politics. It's not some technocratic regulatory body. Engaging in politics is literally the primary job of congressmen.

[theossuary]

I'd refuse to attend any meeting where the sole reason for my presence was for others to play politics. It's like the senators are wheeling out their prized horses for others to gawk at. It's ridiculous.

[skummetmaelk]

According to the article they did offer to send someone else. Presumable the senate was not satisfied with anyone other than the top guy.

[ocdtrekkie]

They would've accepted either Sundar Pichai, or I believe even Eric Schmidt, who is now just a "technical advisor" but was the former CEO of Google, and former executive chairman of both Google and Alphabet, would've been acceptable as well.

Kent Walker doesn't make decisions about how Google conducts business, Kent's job is to whitewash it for public consumption. I believe his current title is "Vice President of Global Affairs", which is more or less a PR title, and of course, as others have noted, he's their head lawyer.

Anyone can look up Kent's numerous writings on Google's Public Policy blog, the Senate wanted to speak to the people who actually make those decisions, not just be informed what the decisions are.

[notsofastbuddy]

They did seem to find Sandberg acceptable.

[dahdum]

Sandberg is COO, on the board, and with Facebook for over 10 years. She's most definitely top level.

Google offered Walker, who was just promoted to the position back in July, and has no operational control over the company.

[kyrra]

Kent Walker has been at Google since 2006, has testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee before[0], and just knows a lot about Google.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/01/fo...

[dahdum]

Yes, but only promoted recently, and has more of an advisory role than a leadership one. Certainly a talented guy, but not comparable to Sandberg or Dorsey.

[puzzle]

You have no idea. Whether it's about GDPR, the Google Books lawsuit, surveillance reform, relationships with China or whatever else the policy issue of the day might be, Kent Walker was involved. He's not a leader? He has hundreds of people under him. Your "only promoted recently" makes it sound like he's a small potato. He's been around for a long time. When Google wasn't even born, at Netscape he gave JWZ the bad news about Microsoft and bad-attitude in the antitrust lawsuit (https://www.jwz.org/gruntle/rbarip.html).

Source: I used to work at Google. I would have asked Kent a policy question well before Larry or Sergey.

[nostrademons]

Kent Walker had a leadership role back when I was hired at Google, which was nearly a decade ago. Titles don't necessarily mean all that much - he's been handling high-level legal issues (including dealing with governments) for over a decade.