MARK Zuckerberg sat at the rather worn desk on his booster seat, arms flat out and still, his shiny and emotionless face suggesting the most powerful company in the world is run by Data from Star Trek.

The analogy is appropriate in that Zuckerberg had been hauled to account by the US Congress anxious to take Facebook to task over what it does with the data it collects about us.

And given the importance of the address, the harvesting of 87m personal lives and concerns of a trashing of the democratic process, the meeting demanded a Torquemada-level interrogation, electrodes attached to sensitive bits and the voltage turned up to Full, the lot. Figuratively speaking.

But that didn’t happen. Instead, the 37 Senators on Capitol Hill were given five minutes each to ask the 33 year-old questions - and it looked all too much like speed dating. Nice easy questions were followed by vague assurances, unconvincing little mea culpas and platitudes.

READ MORE: Facebook to probe ‘tens of thousands’ of apps, says Mark Zuckerberg

And it was tragic to watch because we badly needed answers. We needed to know Facebook’s policy on openness. For example, one Facebook executive once said his company would tolerate extremists planning an attack on Facebook that kills people. His argument was it furthered the goal of connecting. But if it’s true the Russians influenced the election of President Trump or Brexit via social media, is that social connection – or criminal psychology? And does Mark Zuckerberg believe he runs a platform, or is he a publisher, with all the responsibilities that entails?

What we also needed to know was the extent to which Facebook can follow us. Can it track us like Daniel Boone to the edges of our personal worlds? Does Facebook know I watched a double header of Episodes last night (excellent) ate half a guilty muffin and spent 20 minutes on the phone to my mother, suggesting her slightly mad sister is really the Devil in tan tights?

The softie Senators didn’t find out. We needed to know if Facebook has become an Orwellian nightmare, with monopoly control on the world. Mark Zuckerberg, sadly, was allowed to sidestep the question, stating that the typical American uses eight social media apps but not taking to task for the fact Facebook also owns the likes of Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger.

Oh, it would have been enjoyable to watch Zuckerberg

suffer as the current increased, but he didn’t twitch at all when quizzed quickly about claims of anti-competitive behaviour, such as copying Snapchat features or acquiring Onavo, “a tool that helps Facebook identify the next Snapchat it needs to buy or crush.”

READ MORE: How to find out if your Facebook data was shared with Cambridge Analytica

Even when the likes of Senator John Kennedy attacked, arguing Facebook’s user agreement was one-sided, he said “it sucks”. But “sucks” is colloquial and soft. It implies the agreement needs a little toughening. It doesn’t. It needs to be booted out the park and replaced.

Democrat Senator Ed Markey asked if Facebook would support legislation to make sure consumers have to opt-in to any service that passes on their data. Mr Zuckerberg said he agreed with the “principle” but said he “was unclear on how he defined opting in to data sharing.” But the next question should have been “What? You’re the CEO of the biggest social media company in the world, so why are you ripping my knitting with obfuscation you little weasel?”

Yes, Zuckerberg was asked if he would tell the world the hotel he slept in the night before, and said no. But this was as uncomfortable as it got for him.

Now, you may be thinking the electrodes metaphor is a little strong. We all love Facebook. It’s a nice way for pals to let you know where they are and how many calories they’ve burnt up thanks to their FitBit walks. Well, factor this in; Mark Zuckerberg has been making apologies for years about his strategies – and going on to reveal new levels of disdain for the public. In 2003, the then Harvard student had to say sorry for his site Facemash, which allowed users to rate each other’s looks.

Three years later, Facebook feature News Feed drew his apologies after claims by students it was “Stalkerish.” And at the end of 2017, he had to apologise again for the Cambridge Analytica data breach.

What this event should have been was a chance to rein in a company that’s been allowed to run wild. It needed informed people asking the questions. But it didn’t have them. And thanks to the Senators not having the guile, Zuckerberg could remain cool and and as smooth as Kylie’s forehead. As a result, shares in the company actually rose 4.5 per cent during the hearing.

READ MORE: Facebook to probe ‘tens of thousands’ of apps, says Mark Zuckerberg

Mark Zuckerberg has been compared to Lennie in Steinberg’s Of Mice and Men - a man with no understanding of his own strength - but that seems an invidious comparison. The man with the shiney face’s competition strategy suggests he knows how to bully others. The tactics of his lieutenants suggest this is a company hell-bent on world domination. For ever.

The world needed to know if it was in fact being controlled by an android. Sadly, it didn’t happen.