The problem is there are a whole lot of completely clueless people in Congress who ask profoundly stupid questions demonstrating they know nothing, and we expect them to govern.
"Will you ban Finsta?" was not an example of such a question. It was a profoundly stupid question from someone who had the resources to educate themselves before asking it.
The question asked not for me (although...) or you, but for wider audience.
For one immediate example, I do not know what or who Finsta is. The answer to that question, as well as preceding dialogue, would help me to navigate through Facebook's business, and my path would be skewed to favor viewpoint of the interrogator.
This is not discussion of peers, but discussion before a jury.
I prefer people who know quite a bit and come prepared to hearings, as their official job title claims to be, over people just asking questions to fund their next campaign with sound bites or news articles about their impassioned speeches.
No one learns anything new at these hearings. And everyone is posturing.
Or perhaps it doesn't matter whether a particular Member of Congress knows something, but the important part is to have the responsible person in the room and giving testimony, on the record, under oath.
For one such example, the question "how Facebook makes money" provides context so that other people would better understand what follows.