1/ As the lead staffer to the Senate privacy subcommittee, I organized several oversight hearings of tech companies like Facebook, Apple, and Google. Some context for folks who don’t normally watch these kinds of hearings.
2/ The first is that, for better or worse, this is not a true fact-finding expedition. This is 70% kabuki theater, 30% cross-examination. The script is mostly known; the question is how it's said.
3/ The Internet is full of (interesting) “Here’s what to REALLY ask Zuckerberg” stories — as if he’ll divulge thus far undisclosed, sensitive information about Facebook on live national television… this is possible... but it’s unlikely. theatlantic.com/technology/arc…
4/ Instead, Facebook purposefully divulged the most negative facts *last Wednesday,* including that Cambridge Analytica got data on 87M (not 50M) users and that “most” of Facebook’s 2 billion users may have had their profiles scraped by “malicious actors.” newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/04/r…
5/ This way, when Zuckerberg takes a seat this afternoon, he’ll have had a weeklong media cycle to (a) get the outrage out of people’s systems and (b) study the reaction from critics.
6/ This does not mean there isn’t a value to this hearing. In my view, there’s two kinds of questions that are perfect for this setting: the “unanswerable” question, and the request for a pledge.
7/ An unanswerable question works regardless of the answer.
“Have you tested the current News Feed’s algorithm to see if it prioritizes divisive content?”
“No”—> build the case for oversight
“Yes”—> “Pledge to make those results public?”
“I don’t know”—> [wrong answer]
“Have you tested the current News Feed’s algorithm to see if it prioritizes divisive content?”
“No”—> build the case for oversight
“Yes”—> “Pledge to make those results public?”
“I don’t know”—> [wrong answer]
8/ Often, execs have trained backwards and forwards to not divulge *information*... but haven’t prepared for a simple request for a promise. The pressure of dozens of Senators staring at you is real. In that setting, people promise things they normally wouldn’t.
9/ If I were back in the Senate, the one area I would press Zuckerberg on — that I think most people are missing — is the fact that *as he testifies,* lobbyists paid by Facebook are lobbying to block or gut critical *state* privacy laws. See California: latimes.com/politics/essen…
10/ Or Illinois. This one is crazy. *The day after Zuckerberg testifies,* the legislature will consider an amendment to gut the strongest biometric privacy law in the US... an effort that FB has openly supported since 2016: theverge.com/2016/5/27/1179… Text: ilga.gov/legislation/10…
11/ Senators should ask Zuckerberg, point blank: Will you pledge, right here and now, that Facebook will not lobby — or pay others to lobby — to block or water down privacy laws in Congress or in the states?
I suspect he can't make that pledge, and people need to hear that.
I suspect he can't make that pledge, and people need to hear that.
12/ If “too much industry lobbying” doesn’t strike you as an existential problem for privacy, stare at this chart a little while. (Source: publicintegrity.org/2016/12/13/205…) 
13/ *All of that said,* while we should go hard at Facebook, people need to calm down about Zuckerberg the person. Like, don’t try to steal his garbage. The guy has kids. This is really dumb. theoutline.com/post/3994/it-i…
14/ For a good counterpoint on Zuckerberg as a person, read this heartfelt Facebook post from Don Graham (former Washington Post owner & FB board member): m.facebook.com/story.php?stor…
15/ Anyways, if you’re interested in this stuff, I’ll be watching the hearing with @lauramoy & @GeorgetownCPT staff, @paulohm and potentially some special guests. Likely doing some tweeting. See you all at 2:30pm ET.
