[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.