 |
| The disarming face of the man who sold the world. Credit: Lukasz Porwol |
Tuesday this week was billed as the ultimate showdown
between the analogue world and the digital. A colossal Congressional panel (average age 62) deployed to
call to account a small and nervous looking 33 year old boy called Mark Zuckerberg.
The old media delighted in the spectacle; Zuckerberg is the embodiment of their nemesis more than any other. This boy and
his Facebook money making machine have humbled their own media empires and taken billions
of dollars worth of advertising revenues that in decades past would flow unchallenged to them.
In my last post about this I opined that politicians and the
legal system would be wrong footed and far too slow to act to remedy the distortions of power that Facebook has created in our society. And that a multi-billion
dollar business like Facebook could easily resist the challenges from a
bunch of old people who have only the faintest grasp of how the digital age is
turning their world on its head.
Over the course of Tuesday and Wednesday’s hearings, we could watch
Facebook’s share price react in real time to the questions and Zuckerberg’s
fielding of them. He may have needed a booster seat to get his arms on the
table, but during the course of the hearing, Facebook’s market cap increased by
$4bn.
Not a bad financial outcome for an event which had the potential (a now totally disproven theory) to send Facebook's market value into collapse. The markets never lie about confidence. The irony was that Zuckerberg's obvious nervousness and expressions of contrition, inspired and revitalised market confidence. But it wasn't so much that he played a blinder as that his army of opponents couldn't even see the ball, let alone run with it.
The politicians lost massively on points. There were some entertaining moments such as when Mr Z was asked if he would like to disclose the hotel he stayed in last night, or the email addresses of the last people he had sent emails too. These were smart and meaningful questions, but they did nothing to address the critical and fundamental matters of what and how Facebook would change in future.
Zuckerberg deflected many questions by kicking the can down
the road with responses such as ‘ I don’t know, but I’ll get my people to come
back to you about that’. This is hardly a confidence inspiring answer, but the
markets reacted with relief because it was a sure sign that Facebook was more
likely to survive with cuts and bruises than fatal injuries.
Zuckerberg had prepared intensively for the hearing with a
team of consultants and lawyers grooming him so that instead of his robotic and hollow sounding delivery of norm, he conveyed a humility and
likeability that seemed to charm some senators. They reacted like indulgent
parents, wooed by the contrition of a wayward child.
But I didn't buy any of it. This is a man whose outward appearance of geeky frailty conceals a mind which is entirely committed to the exploitation for his commercial gain of any and every human weakness, whether we are a leader of government or a dishwasher in Detroit. In that sense, his mission is truly egalitarian.
But I didn't buy any of it. This is a man whose outward appearance of geeky frailty conceals a mind which is entirely committed to the exploitation for his commercial gain of any and every human weakness, whether we are a leader of government or a dishwasher in Detroit. In that sense, his mission is truly egalitarian.
He was able to duck answering questions he didn’t like.
His preparation and the ignorance of his interrogators ensured that none were able to press him to the point
where he became visibly uncomfortable.
But despite his appearance and demeanor, Zuckerberg is not a child and neither is he undergoing a transformation
from inadvertent miscreant to redeemed character. He, by design and no
small amount of luck, leads one of the most valuable business enterprises on
earth. He is at the helm of a business which enables digital lawlessness more than any
other.
His preparation and demeanour of vulnerability successfully blunted the assault of an array
of America’s most senior and powerful people, because they were completely under equipped to effectively challenge him. Most displayed a complete void in their understanding of how the
internet works, let alone how Facebook works.
The format of the hearing didn't enable any genuine insight. Every time it got even half-way relevant, such
as when South Dakota senator John Thune asked about the technical and
linguistic difficulties involved in programming AI bots to discern hate-speech, the exchange was abruptly terminated as each successive legislator
ran up against their four-minute time limit. Their world and Zuckerberg’s are so different as to be unable to communicate effectively. That is no fault of Zuckerberg’s; it is the fault of a generation of leaders who have comprehensively failed to keep in touch with the world they are supposed to be leading. The tragic irony here is that both politicians and social media claim to be all about open communication and building a better world.
These increasingly unrelated world views retain one common aspiration; the building and protection of wealth and power. And now these two worlds are in collision. Those with directly vested financial interests in Facebook sensed this was a stalemate and were thus relieved of their deepest fears. The markets could see this event was now unlikely to damage their financial interests and that their investment was no longer looking as shaky as it did just a week ago.
These increasingly unrelated world views retain one common aspiration; the building and protection of wealth and power. And now these two worlds are in collision. Those with directly vested financial interests in Facebook sensed this was a stalemate and were thus relieved of their deepest fears. The markets could see this event was now unlikely to damage their financial interests and that their investment was no longer looking as shaky as it did just a week ago.
That Zuckerberg and Facebook should triumph in this
encounter proves I think that the power held by the owners of digital real
estate is unlikely to be dented anytime soon. Or at least not until government gets to understand what their role is in a digital world.
Prepare yourself accordingly.
Prepare yourself accordingly.
