10 / 96
10 Leaders
The Economist
April 14th 2018
1
S
AYING sorry can be an en-
riching experience. For Mark
Zuckerberg, who this week en-
dured two days of questioning
in front ofCongress, the rewards
of contrition are not just meta-
phorical. Over the course of his
testimony, as the Facebook boss
apologised for the leakage of data on 87m users to a political-
campaign firm, his company’s shares rose by 5.7% and his own
net worth by $3.2bn.
Shareholders were doubtless relieved by Mr Zuckerberg’s
roboticbut gaffe-free display. Andeven the firm’s fiercest critics
ought to acknowledge the distance that it has travelled since
the Cambridge Analytica story broke inMarch. Mr Zuckerberg
welcomed the idea of regulation and cautiously endorsed a
forthcoming European law on data protection. By saying ex-
plicitly that Facebook was responsible for the content on its
platform, he has opened the door to bearing greater liability
for thematerial it carries. But the bounce in the share price also
signals something worrying: that neither the firm nor Ameri-
can legislators have grasped the need for radical change.
Start with Facebook. Mr Zuckerberg told Congress that any
firm that has grown at the speed of Facebook was bound to
make mistakes. But the dorm-room excuse is wearing thin.
Facebookis the sixth-most-valuable listedfirmon the planet. It
spent $11.5mon lobbying inWashington in 2017. Its endless guff
about “community” counts for little when it has repeatedly
and flagrantly disregarded its users’ rights to control their own
data. The company has carried out lots of fiddles in recent
weeks—from making privacy settings clearer to promising an
audit of suspicious apps. But it should gomuch further.
An internal investigation into how third-party apps have
been using Facebook users’ data is not enough to restore trust:
it should appoint an outside firm to conduct a full indepen-
dent examination of its own conduct. That would help ad-
dress lingering questions; Cambridge Analytica may be just
one of many such outfits to have got hold of user data, for ex-
ample. The appointment of an independent chairman would
be another way to improve the quality of debate and scrutiny
within Facebook. Alongwith other tech firms, it should create
an industry ombudsman whose jobs would include making
access toplatforms easier for independent researchers. Instead
ofopeningup, however, the riskis that Facebookwill throwup
walls: its decision to kick third-party data-brokers off the plat-
form has the convenient effect of both protecting users’ data
and entrenching its power as a source of those data.
Wanted: well-informed legislators
Even if Facebook did all this, there would still be a need for
data-protection regulation in America. Mr Zuckerberg has a
majority of the voting rights at the company: an independent
chairman would not stop him wielding ultimate control. The
firm’s advertising-ledbusinessmodel incentivises it to turnus-
ers’ personal data into targets for ads. Facebook has said noth-
ing about allowing people to opt out of being tracked across
the web. It is inherently hard for users of online services to
make informed choices about howtheirdata shouldbe stored.
In any case, these issues spanmore firms than Facebook.
That leads to the other concern raised by this week’s hear-
ings: the capacity of policymakers to put together good legisla-
tion. Where Mr Zuckerberg was competent, his interrogators
were often clueless (see United States section). One seemed
not to know that the firm made money from advertising; an-
other was more interested in getting Facebook to build fibre-
optic cable in her state. Towork for its users, the data economy
requires thoughtful policy and a sea-change in the way tech
firms are run. On thisweek’s evidence, neither looks likely.
7
Unmarked
MarkZuckerberg and his questioners inCongress fail to reassure
A
FTER seven years ofwar and
hundreds of thousands of
deaths, it takes an act of utter
barbarism to shock the world
out of its indifference. But every
so often, Bashar al-Assad sup-
plies one. On April 7th more
than 40 Syrianswere killedwith
poisonous gas in the town of Douma. Videos showed men,
women and children lying lifeless, with foam dribbling over
their lips. Such horrors are why most countries outlawed the
use of chemical weapons long ago—and why Syria’s despot
flouts that ban. He has carried out dozens of chemical attacks
over the course of Syria’s war, sowing terror in rebel-held ar-
eas. Theworld should not let himget awaywith it.
As
The Economist
went to press, America and its allies were
considering responding to the atrocity inDoumawithmilitary
action. If they are convinced of the evidence against Mr Assad
(who denies responsibility), then they should punish him
hard enough to deter him from gassing his people again. That
will take more than a flurry of cruise missiles. Air strikes
should be aimed at the dictator’s chemical-weapons plants
and command-and-control centres. Turning one of his palaces
to rubble (after a suitable warning to let civilians escape)
would give ordinary Syrians visible evidence of the disgust
theworld feels for their ruler.
War crimes in Syria
The duty to deter
Bashar al-Assadhas used chemicalweapons again. Ifhe is not punished, otherswill do so, too