Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg broke his silence on the crisis over political-advertising firm Cambridge Analytica\u2019s access to user data on the social network, outlining concrete steps the company is taking to make sure such a leak doesn\u2019t happen again. Critics were underwhelmed.<\/p>\n
“I\u2019ve been working to understand exactly what happened and how to make sure this doesn\u2019t happen again,” Zuckerberg wrote in a post on his Facebook profile page.<\/p>\n
“I promise you we\u2019ll work through this and build a better service over the long term.”<\/p>\n
By pledging to investigate whether Cambridge Analytica still holds the information it obtained from a third-party app creator, and broadening the probe to other developers that may have run afoul of Facebook\u2019s rules, Zuckerberg took a step in the right direction, according to lawmakers, investors and users.<\/p>\n
But it wasn\u2019t enough to end the criticism – some remained skeptical the company is doing enough.<\/p>\n
Lawmakers still want Zuckerberg to testify<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThis isn\u2019t going to cut it,\u201d David Cicilline, a Democratic US representative from Rhode Island, said in a Facebook post responding to the CEO\u2019s statement. \u201cMark Zuckerberg needs to testify before Congress.\u201d<\/p>\n That sentiment was echoed by other lawmakers, including Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat from Minnesota, and Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut. \u201cMea culpas are no substitute for questions and answers under oath,\u201d Blumenthal, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said.<\/p>\n \u201cCongress has failed to hold Facebook accountable, and legislate protections on privacy, which are manifestly necessary.\u201d<\/p>\n Earlier Wednesday in Washington, Facebook officials met privately with House Energy and Commerce Committee staffers from both sides of the political aisle for nearly two hours, according to two people who attended the meeting.<\/p>\n One main question was whether there might be others – including other “bad actors” – who might have had access to the same data that Cambridge Analytica obtained from more than 50 million Facebook profiles.<\/p>\n Staffers, speaking on the condition they not be identified, said the Facebook officials acknowledged that the company doesn\u2019t know how widely disseminated that information might be, or how many copies were made.<\/p>\n The Facebook officials refused to commit to Zuckerberg appearing voluntarily before congressional committees, said the staffers, who declined to identify the company representatives in attendance.<\/p>\n Zuckerberg missed the bigger picture<\/strong><\/p>\n Zuckerberg\u2019s solutions focused solely on the outside developers that have accessed Facebook user details through login tools. \u201cThey\u2019re not recognizing that they have systemic problems,\u201d Brian Wieser, an analyst at Pivotal Research, said in an interview.<\/p>\n \u201cThese are just the problems we know about, but they have ongoing problems managing different parts of their business.\u201d<\/p>\n The company came up with steps to resolve the developer problems, but \u201cto garner full appreciation from the public and the market, there should be greater emphasis on why it occurred in the first place,\u201d said James Cakmak, an analyst at Monness Crespi Hardt & Co.<\/p>\n It may be too little, too late<\/strong><\/p>\n The 33-year-old chief executive officer waited several days to respond to news reports, even as the furor grew. \u201cEverybody is disappointed that he and Sheryl Sandberg didn\u2019t come out with this right away,\u201d said Ivan Feinseth, chief investment officer at Tigress Financial Partners, also referring to the company\u2019s chief operating officer.<\/p>\n Conversation about the issue, including a #deleteFacebook movement, had already been trending online. And when Zuckerberg did come out to address the public, some users weren\u2019t reassured.<\/p>\n \u201cIt has become a recurring affair of reassuring PR in face of being caught,\u201d Sukvheer Singh, who has used Facebook since 2008, said in a message.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t think I trust them anymore so his post is meaningless.\u201d<\/p>\n Cameron Koo, who has used Facebook since 2004 – the year the company was founded – said investigating the spread of information sounds good, but it will be hard for the company to fix what it already broke. \u201cBanning rogue developers for non-compliance sounds great, but it\u2019s a non-starter,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Once information gets in the hands of people who shouldn\u2019t have it, it\u2019s \u201ctoothpaste out of the tube.\u201d<\/p>\n Investors are closely watching Facebook\u2019s management<\/strong><\/p>\n Following the calls from lawmakers, there have been broader questions about how Facebook\u2019s management is handling the fallout. \u201cThese are operational failures,\u201d Weiser said.<\/p>\n \u201cOn what basis can you say that management is great, let alone good? You can say they were able to generate a lot of users and a lot of revenue. That\u2019s not what makes a great management team.\u201d<\/p>\n Facebook\u2019s board followed up on Zuckerberg\u2019s statement with its own, responding to critics.<\/p>\n \u201cMark and Sheryl know how serious this situation is and are working with the rest of Facebook leadership to build stronger user protections,\u201d Sue Desmond-Hellmann, the lead director of Facebook\u2019s board, said in a statement.<\/p>\n \u201cThey have built the company and our business and are instrumental to its future.\u201d<\/p>\n Some analysts were willing to give Facebook\u2019s leadership the benefit of the doubt. \u201cThey are great executives in that they\u2019ve built a huge company,\u201d Feinseth said. \u201cAnd there is no competition, there is no peer, there is no alternative.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n