This strikes me as especially interesting. I mean, I'd personally theoretically have my reservations about this congress over and above the average congress, but FaceMark refusing strikes me as a deeply telling datum about how he's thinking about this.
This is not a deeply telling datum. It is a boring an standard one.
More accurately there is risk in talking to the US congress when the topic sounds more like an inquisition than when congress is asking for opinions.
The matter then is why is it a risk for Facebook to discuss the CA issue? Are they worried about a witch hunt or a public ethics execution?
> ...my reservations about this congress over and above the average congress...
ugh, come on. it's not like the whole congress votes on how you're to be treated, and the questions you'll be asked. the biggest heels on both sides of the aisle are free to harangue you all they want.
Not the whole Congress, but how exactly do you think procedure and parameters for hearings are set and objections during hearings are resolved? Both the specific personalities in leadership positions and the attitudes of the majority matter a lot.
EDIT: It's true that there is a tradition of providing some semblance of balance in committee process, including hearings, with the majority (not necessarily by party) mainly controlling what items are considered and what hearings are held, and ultimately the outcome; but not only is partisanship greater than in the past, but precisely those traditions have noticeably weakened over the last couple decades and particularly in the current Congress.
Any exec hauled on the carpet is going to want a drink afterwards. That's not the concern.