After 18 months, 73 witnesses, 4,350 questions and countless hours of evidence, British lawmakers passed a sad verdict on Facebook from Hell.
In one of the most comprehensive reports on the catastrophic social network in 2018, the British parliamentary committee published a report on Monday accusing Facebook of making profits over privacy, misleading legislators and being a "digital gangster" who thinks itself over the law.
Mark Zuckerberg was singled out for particularly exhausting criticism. Facebook CEO revealed "contempt" to the British parliament, because he was unable to give evidence, and perhaps more scrupulously, they say, has demonstrated a spectacular failure of leadership in fascinating crises in Facebook.
Nowhere is this better than Facebook's early processing of the huge impairment of Cambridge Analytica data, a scandal that interfered with the company in March last year. Legislators were shocked that Zuckerberg did not know about the scandal, and said that he was addressing structural issues in Facebook.
The report of the Committee on Digital Technology, Culture, the Media and Sports revealed that three Facebook leaders discussed violating e-mail data that affected 50 million users before The Guardian first reported this problem in December 201
Much more than this small detail, but in the report it was clear that several Facebook staff knew about the problem of Cambridge Analytica long before publication. The report does not name employees.
Here is the point, our emphasis:
"We wanted to know when and what people working on Facebook were the first to know about the violation of GSR / Cambridge Analytica. ICO confirmed in correspondence with the Committee that ] The three "senior managers" were involved in the exchange of e-mail in 2015 for the GSR violation before December 2015 when it was first reported to The Guardian. At ICO's request, we agreed to keep the names confidential, but it seems that this important information is not was handed over to the oldest Facebook leaders who are in charge of asking us why it is.  What did not do unnamed "senior managers," as a result of this reading, has become an escalation issue for top managers of Facebook, including Zuckerberg. Instead, he learned about the same time as other of us when Christopher Wiley exploded a whistle about the case of last year's explosive interview with The Observer and the New York Times.
The committee wrote: "The magnitude and importance of the violation of GSR / Cambridge Analytica was such that its occurrence should be immediately attributed to Mark Zuckerberg as his CEO ".
Applying this as a transition point, lawmakers then condemned the defendant's approach to Facebook's approach to crisis management. In the 109-page report of the committee, the politicians said (emphasis):
"The fact that this is not evidence that Facebook did not relate to the seriousness of the gravity it deserved. It was a profound failure of power. In Facebook, that his CEO does not know what is happening, the company now supports until the issue became public for us all in 2018. The incident shows the fundamental weakness of Facebook in managing its affairs for people whose data is being used. for own commercial interests. "
This is not the first time that we have heard this alert in recent months.
The New York Times report in November last year sparked a light on how Zuckerberg was dealing with past mistakes. She portrayed him, as sometimes, not interested in some of the existential issues that threatened Facebook over the past three years.
The Times stated that Zuckerberg and his wife, Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, "were distracted by personal projects" as Facebook was in danger. As the report of Russian intervention in 2017 shows, Zuckerberg was "listening". He also said he would prefer to focus on "broader technological issues," leaving Sandberg's policy.
Read more : Mark Zuckerberg fried a group of lawmakers who accused the CEO of Facebook of an impressive management failure
In defense of Zuckerberg at that time, Facebook stated that it was "deeply involved in the fight against false news and information operations on Facebook. "
But the inability of the three anonymous performers to point out the impending scandal from the Cambridge Analysts also raises questions about Facebook reporting systems. This also hinted at last week's former security chief Alex Stamos, who told CNN that it might be difficult for Facebook executives to admit guilty.
"The truth is that there is a bit of culture among the leaders of" The Game of the Thrones, "he said." One of the problems is that people who make all these decisions , have a very close connection … if you keep the same people in the same places, it is very difficult to admit that you were wrong, is not it?
When you see the words "The Game of the Thrones" mentioned in the company's culture, it's not good, indicating that the toxic current of ambitions, politics, profits, and power goes through the company's veins, and everything in Facebook is presiding over it. Zuckerberg – intact as CEO, CEO, and controlling shareholder
Damian Collins, chairman of the British legislature, said that Zuckerberg was unable to demonstrate the "leadership and personal responsibility" required by the CEO of such a large company. Last week, Stamos, a senior insider by the end of last year, expressed it as follows: "Facebook did not measure more influence and thought about how people could get used to abuse. Mark's responsibility. "