Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg takes Washington seriously

Last year, since the last official visit of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in Washington, DC, lawmakers around the world have reprimanded the executive for not giving them enough time.

But this week, Zuckerberg suddenly became extremely accessible to US lawmakers and even President Donald Trump. During a surprise visit to China, Facebook had called for meetings, including a Wednesday evening dinner between Zuckerberg and a group of senators, some of whom had threatened to put in place regulations that would radically alter its business. . Over the next two days, he met with several other lawmakers, including one who suggested he sell two of Facebook's most successful acquisitions before regulators potentially try to force a break.

That's all a change from 2017 when Zuckerberg did not even show up at the first congressional hearings on foreign powers using Facebook to try to influence the 2016 presidential election. At a time when investigations and billions of dollars in fines are piling up, Zuckerberg seems to be realizing that things are getting serious. After meeting with Zuckerberg, Senator Mark Warner, D-Va., Said the CEO seems to understand that self-regulation is no longer on the table.

If Zuckerberg knows that regulation is imminent, it makes sense that he comes to the people who are developing these laws and is trying to influence their thinking. Contrary to his testimony before the Congress, Zuckerberg was not under oath during his discussions with legislators. This means that all the commitments he has made to defend a national law on the protection of privacy or to work for electoral security rely solely on his word.

"They'll say it's a successful trip as long as they improve their relationships and make senators more likely to call Facebook if they have a problem or are considering legislating in the area." said Matt Grossmann, associate professor. at Michigan State University, which has written a lot about lobbying. "This is part of a long-term strategy and we should not read it for an immediate political purpose."

Indeed, Senator Richard Blumenthal, a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce and the Judiciary, said he was "impressed" by Facebook's interests in Internet privacy, although he hopes to "pursue the conversation".

The Facebook game is to "avoid the worst case, rather than achieve their best result," Grossmann said.

"In the worst case, there is a policy that would affect their bottom line and who would not be in the room," he said. "So, they want to make sure that does not happen by acting openly to politics and presenting their own ideas."

Zuckerberg's recent calls for technological regulation contrast sharply with Facebook's motto of "acting fast and breaking things". One person familiar with Zuckerberg's trip said his goal was to build on his March editorial in the Washington Post, outlining his priority areas for regulation. But the acceptance of a new political reality is also a strategic move for Facebook.

Breaking the rules is a good plan when the system is not set up to deal with an industry as revolutionary as technology. But now that lawmakers have realized the potential danger of leaving the industry free of all regulation, states and countries around the world are quickly using it to enact laws that will protect their constituents.

This could prove to be an expensive puzzle for Facebook. As a global company, Facebook should choose to create a fragmented service to comply with laws in different jurisdictions or to serve the lowest common denominator. Facebook is already beginning to address these challenges with the introduction of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation and the California Consumer Privacy Act.

"Companies would always prefer to have a national standard," said Lee Drutman, senior researcher at think tank New America, which conducts research on lobbying. A national privacy bill, for example, would not only be more effective for Facebook, but also probably less progressive than the legislation of a traditional liberal state like California, Drutman said.

While members of Congress on both sides of the aisle advocate the enactment of laws in the technology sector, Facebook can simply hope to be part of the debate.

"If you're not at the table, then you're on the menu," said Drutman.

Although a simple conversation with lawmakers will probably not change their opinions, Mr. Drutman said that a visit from a CEO is a strong sign that the company takes them seriously.

"It's like we're taking out the big guns," said Drutman. "This leaves Congress members with the impression that it is a problem that really worries society."

On top of that, Zuckerberg has a certain X factor as the household name.

"Some CEOs have star power, and I think people listen a little differently and hear things a little differently when it comes from the mouth of a celebrity CEO than when it comes from the mouth of a person." An ordinary lobbyist, "said Drutman. I said. "There is a way to pay attention when someone of Mark Zuckerberg's stature speaks."

Grossmann said that Zuckerberg's "celebrity" makes it even more important for him to get acquainted with members of Congress.

"I think especially in this case where he is both known and caricatured as a villain in some accounts, it helps soften the image when you meet someone in person," Grossmann said.

Seth Bloom, an antitrust lawyer who lobbied for high-tech companies, including Amazon, said Facebook would not immediately know the impact of Zuckerberg's trip. But if criticism in Congress dissipates, society will probably consider the trip a success, he said. As former Attorney General of the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust Laws, Bloom said that the CEO's visits had had a considerable impact, even though they had not affected his judgment.

"It seemed like they were taking the problem we were concerned with very seriously," Bloom said. "The impression was that if they said something, they would do it because the CEO was saying it."A flawless stay

WATCH: How does American antitrust law work and what does it mean for Big Tech