Wealth Meets Supposed Legal Might

Zuckerberg shows anger; Bezos shows happiness, anger, fear & sadness; Cook shows surprise, fear and sadness; Pichai shows disgust. All four executives have eyes opened wide, showing anger, fear and surprise.

Yesterday these four tech executives testified via video chat before the antitrust committee of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee. If you’re a Christian steeped in the Bible’s book of Revelation, their joint appearance might suggest to you The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: riders symbolizing pestilence, war, famine, and death. As a consumer or a woebegone business competitor of these four executives, however, you’re more likely to be wondering: who will ever restore our TRUST in antitrust enforcement?

From left to right, you’re viewing three household names and a fourth, Sundar Pichai, who now runs Alphabet (i.e. Google). What do Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, and Pichai have in common in these four photographs atop Wednesday’s New York Times article about the pending hearing?  The answer is eyes wide open, as if the four men are alert to seizing on new opportunities as they operate de facto monopolies, or at least duopolies, in domains like online search, online marketplaces, app stores, and advertising sales.

Have unfair, even illegal acts been committed by these tech giants? That’s for Congress and federal prosecutors to decide. Much clearer is that the FBI estimates losses from white-collar crime of between $300 to $600 billion annually. In contrast, the total is $4 billion a year for the blue-collar crimes of burglary and robberies. Don’t waste your energy; you needn’t guess which type of crime has the higher conviction rate.

On Economic Mobility & Learning Capacity

This week’s podcast episode concerns the story of a 150-pound, high school viola player jumped by three plain-clothes police officers who found him “suspicious looking.” Yes, an innocent black kid living in Homewood, a downtrodden neighborhood in Pittsburgh founded by Andrew Carnegie long, long ago, is a far cry from the wealth being generated in Silicon Valley. In today’s video, I briefly address why eyes wide open – curiosity – learning capacity – is emerging as the key to success in life.

Released today: episode #12 of Dan Hill’s EQ Spotlight podcast series, featuring David A. Harris, the author of A City Divided: Race, Fear and the Law in Police Confrontations. Listen to the clip below and click on the image to get to the new episode that appears on the world’s largest book podcast with over 1.2 million downloads monthly.

David A. Harris' photo and his book cover "A City Divided Race, fear, and the Law in Police Confrontations" will be on Dan Hill's EQ Spotlight podcast

How do we move police forces from a warrior culture to connecting better with communities they serve? 

Harris is a professor at the University of Pittsburgh’s law school and is the leading U.S. authority on racial profiling. In addition to also being the author of Profiles in Injustice (2002). Harris hosts the podcast Criminal Injustice.

Topics covered in this episode include:

  • Harris’s vantage point on what the Minnesota legislature got right and only half-right in recently approving a police accountability measure in the wake of the George Floyd killing.
  • Why navigating fear and anger is so hard for both black suspects and the police alike.
  • What role a lack of familiarity – and trust – plays for officers and suspects in trying to avoid escalating their encounters.
New Books Network and Dan Hill's EQ  Spotlight podcast logos

Dan Hill, PhD, is the president of Sensory Logic, Inc.

Mark Zuckerberg’s Emotional DNA

Mark Zuckerberg's emotional DNA

Next up in my series on the celebrities I analyzed for Famous Faces Decoded is Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, born on this day in 1984. Which two emotions most distinguish Zuckerberg from the 173 celebrities I facially coded for my book?

The people I surveyed said happiness and joy. The truth is, yes, joy distinguishes Zuckerberg – as shown here. With a true, joyful smile, the muscle around the eye tightens, creating a sparkle that can’t be readily faked. Think of joy as the equivalent of drinking champagne, which Zuckerberg can afford many cases of at this point in his career! In contrast, what is Zuckerberg’s second most characteristic emotion? It’s anger; should you doubt me, check out his appearances before Congress in April of 2018. As to Zuckerberg’s least characteristic emotion, it’s fear.

Now’s the Time to Showcase the Uppermost 1%

062419-01 Tubman & Zuckerberg Dollars

Not only are you what you eat and where you eat, you’re also defined by your heroes. And now with Facebook’s recent announcement that it will launch its own global currency, the effort by Barack Obama to replace Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on a new $20 bill looks ever so quaint. Just imagine it! Wanting to honor a former slave and abolitionist, whereas Donald Trump favors Jackson: America’s first populist president, and the guy who forced the Cherokee Indians Trail of Tears removal to Oklahoma.  Too bad Trump fears Silicon Valley’s power. With the Libra cryptocurrency, isn’t it time to retire all the presidents? From the $1 bill through the $100 bill, check out the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Hamilton, Jackson, Grant, and Franklin. Hardly a smile among them. Who needs that kind of downer, when it’s already enough to have to surrender cash to buy something? With Mark Zuckerberg’s example leading the way, it’s time to replace the whole lot with the RICHEST living Americans on U.S. bills instead. Should there be any exceptions? Only one: former Treasury secretary Salmon P. Chase graces the $10,000 bill. Why not depose him for current Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin, who testified to Congress that a delay of six years in releasing the Tubman bill was for technical reasons. Gotta love a liar, even if Mnuchin isn’t quite as wealthy as Zuckerberg.

A Tight-Lipped Zuckerberg: The Face of Facebook in the Congressional Hot Seat

So it’s over. Facebook’s founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has spent two days being questioned by Congress about Russian and Cambridge Analytica malfeasance involving Facebook’s platform, and the verdict from Wall Street is that Zuckerberg did great. Over those two days, the stock price rose more than 5%, adding over $24 billion to Facebook’s capitalization and personally netting Zuckerberg around $3 billion. That’s not a bad return on Facebook’s investment of hiring a team from the law firm WilmerHale to put Zuckerberg through “charm school” before the hearings began.

So far so good, but how did Zuckerberg really perform? Can Congressional leaders and the American public believe what Facebook’s CEO said? The nonverbal signals suggest otherwise.

The goal was for Zuckerberg to come across as humble, contrite, and trustworthy. That would be Zuckerberg as kindly Dr. Jekyll (in a newfound suit and tie) and not the evil Mr. Hyde version (in his usual gray t-shirt and hoodie) as emphasized in the movie The Social Network. Yes, Zuckerberg (mostly) said all the right things. “Our top priority has always been our social mission,” Zuckerberg intoned right on-message as he spoke of “connecting people” and “building communities.” But often the CEO wasn’t especially on-emotion when it came to appearing open-minded and open-hearted regarding users’ concerns about privacy and transparency.  Examples abound.

 In an opening statement mea culpa, Zuckerberg told the Senators “I’m sorry” while glaring at them defiantly.  Is Facebook a monopoly? Zuckerberg managed a forced smile as he asserted that it “certainly doesn’t feel like that to me.” But by then, his eyebrows had already shot up, while averting his gaze, in initially reacting to Senator Lindsey Graham’s query. Clearly, the question had hit its mark.

Sometimes, Zuckerberg backtracked. For example, Senator Diane Feinstein wanted to know: “Why not ban Cambridge [Analytica from accessing data]?” Of course, the real answer is that Facebook’s business model depends on harvesting and sharing people’s personal data. So Zuckerberg’s voice got tight and his mouth pulled wide in fear as he dodged the question by saying Cambridge Analytica wasn’t an advertiser (and therefore seemingly immune to any ban). After a break and conferring with “his team,” however, Zuckerberg informed the Senators he’d “misspoke.” Zuckerberg gave that admission with his eyes wide, alert to whatever danger his fudging might bring.

All in all, it’s true that the Senators and Representatives didn’t extract any firm, worthwhile promises from Zuckerberg to do better in terms of users’ privacy. The team that was so quick to inform Zuckerberg that he’d misspoken in regards to Cambridge Analytica’s initial status as an advertiser apparently couldn’t be as quick to provide specific solutions for the concerns Congress was raising. Relatively unscathed, an ever more confident Zuckerberg eventually moved by degrees to being his usual reckless, happy-go-lucky self.

Asked point blank by a member of the House of Representatives on day two of his testimony, “Why should we trust you?” Zuckerberg felt comfortable blithely smiling his way through his answer.

At 1 Hacker Way in Menlo Park, California, “move fast and break things” remains the unofficial model of an enterprise that first found its footing by posting photos of Harvard female students being often harshly ranked by other (male) students regarding their beauty. Anger was Zuckerberg’s primary mode during the hearings, a closed, tightly-expressed emotion about wanting to be in control and move ahead as you see fit.  Zuckerberg’s initial, angry Mr. Hyde tendency, on display this week on Capitol Hill, doesn’t bode well for Congress or users getting anything close to what they want from Facebook going forward. Advertisers, well, that’s another story altogether.