What I don't understand is why the "top executive" has to be the one to attend from Google. Another source said Google offered to send "someone", just not the top level execs (e.g. Pindar; a la Zuck, Jack)
Can someone explain this to me? They're big companies, the "top executive" may not (or even likely is not) the best person to attend anyway. As much as I equally appreciate they are also the figure heads. But I guess that's kind of my point... seems more like a governmental marketing exercise in some ways to want those people only specifically.
Politicians like to feel important. This reminds me of the UK parliament demanding Zuck go to hearing there and not some other executive.
Also reminds me of Kanye tweeting "I need to meet with Larry from Google".
It's all nonsense, the question is, how much does not playing ball with the nonsense hurt you? This article wants to say that not playing ball could lead to more regulation/worse treatment by legislators. I'm not sure I really believe that Congress will actually do anything, but who knows.
Can someone explain this to me? They're big companies, the "top executive" may not (or even likely is not) the best person to attend anyway. As much as I equally appreciate they are also the figure heads. But I guess that's kind of my point... seems more like a governmental marketing exercise in some ways to want those people only specifically.