Can Zuckerberg start with humility?

It is difficult to believe that it has been only a few weeks since news outlets using information from former Cambridge Analytica employee Christopher Wylie reported that the political consulting firm had gained access to the personal data of more than 87 million Facebook users.

The revelations — included in stories in The Guardian and The New York Times — and Facebook’s response to them turned what had been a story mainly of interest to U.S. political obsessives into front-page news around the world. In its wake, Facebook announced that CEO Mark Zuckerberg would testify before Congress this week.

Unsurprisingly, a cottage industry has sprung up to address Cambridge Analytica’s use of Facebook data and precisely what questions Congress should ask Zuckerberg.

I was fortunate enough to be part of one such online brainstorming effort featuring academics and legal experts across the political spectrum in which I asked: “Mr. Zuckerberg, as Facebook continues to grow and succeed and be used by ever more citizens of the world, can you imagine Facebook being or becoming so ubiquitous, so essential to daily life, that you would consider it appropriate for Facebook, and the information that it controls, to be regulated as a public utility/resource/basic human right? If so, what is that size/ubiquity, and if not, why not?”

All of the questions I have seen proposed for Zuckerberg have answers worth knowing, but given the nature of congressional hearings, I doubt critical ones will be asked. Therefore, I’ve endeavored to set aside any expectations of specifics, and instead muse on what kind of answers I would like to hear.

• First, I would like to hear humility, not hubris. Zuckerberg should embrace this opportunity to explain himself in public, not treat it as an obligation he would rather not have. He needs to make clear he realizes he’s in charge of a powerful tool, one used by more than 2 billion people. He has taken positive steps, stating: “We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake” regarding Facebook’s privacy policy. But because a broad view of responsibility is only a first step, I hope to hear him acknowledge that he and his co-workers are not in complete control of Facebook. Acknowledging and accepting Facebook’s fallibility would go a long way.
• Second, I want to see openness — in terms of attitude in general and a commitment to future behavior. The Cambridge Analytica story makes it clear that we can’t just trust Facebook to do the right thing — if ever we could. We need verification. Zuckerberg and Facebook need to let others in to observe, advise and report. Facebook has started on the right track with news of an independent group of scholars to examine social media’s impact on elections. But more is needed: independent researchers need access to Facebook’s inner workings, with permission to publish what they learn.
• Third, I seek acknowledgment of and commitment to Facebook’s users. It’s often said that if you’re not paying for something, you’re not the customer, you’re the product. This scandal reveals that Facebook is a perfect example. Zuckerberg’s answers must make it clear that he intends to empower, not ignore, users, and take them seriously as a constituency, not as raw material.
• Fourth, I would like Zuckerberg’s answers to engage with my original question about Facebook becoming essential to daily life. The social media platform likely has passed the point I describe. The fact that we are having this conversation is proof. I’d like to hear that he understands Facebook has become so successful that some new way of thinking is required. And, that he would welcome it.

If this scandal is not enough to convince him that a new paradigm is appropriate for Facebook, then it won’t matter what his answers are to any of the questions he is posed.

Adam Holland is project manager at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.