Does absolute power corrupt absolutely? Not to overdramatize the idea, but it’s at least the nature of the question the world may be asking itself — again — before, during and after the televised pow-wow between Facebook, Inc.’s (NASDAQ:FB) Mark Zuckerberg and the European Union’s Parliament. The topic of conversation? You guessed it… the social networking website’s role in exposing Facebook users to political ads purchased by a nation’s political adversaries.

You can bet the Cambridge Analytica matter will come up too.

It’s a hot seat Zuckerberg probably thought he’d managed to step out of, or at least cool down, after masterfully escaping the potential adverse impact of a similar Senate hearing in the United States. Indeed, the meeting with the EU’s members of parliament is apt to be tougher than the comparable grilling the U.S. government dished out last month. Since the meeting will be televised via the web, there’s a good chance that the EU’s occasionally-rowdy lawmakers are setting up a straw man.

And it’s definitely a sign that Facebook users aren’t going to be allowed to simply forgive and forget. The question of absolute power corrupting absolutely may not be answered because Zuckerberg may soon be losing his absolute power–at least in regards to what Facebook can do with data.

That’s the last thing current and prospective owners of FB stock want to see, of course. Such never-ending scrutiny will surely tighten the clamp on the company’s top and bottom line. In fact, we’re already seeing signs of this.

The Pushback Is Quite Real

In retrospect, the entire matter could have been — and arguably should have been — avoided. But Zuckerberg’s youth may have made it easier to slip into the trappings of running a major publicly-traded company, an organization that names about a third of the world as customers. And when you’re in the spotlight, every mistake you make is magnified, and the media is more than happy to recycle the gaffe.

Each recirculation incites consumers as well as lawmakers. This especially true in an environment where — ironically enough — sites like Facebook make it all too easy to rekindle anger and express outrage to governmental representatives.

In other words, the public isn’t going to let the matter go. If anything, Tuesday’s webcast discussion will leave activists and regulators even more motivated to establish roadblocks that will keep Facebook in check.

It’s already happening, in fact.

Take, for instant, the advent of a group called Freedom From Facebook. The organization is launching an ad campaign aimed at consumers but ultimately designed to put pressure on the FTC to break Facebook up into smaller, individual pieces. It’s a movement that would have gotten little traction before the Cambridge Analytica scandal, but lawmakers are certainly listening now.

In the meantime, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office has already made clear it’s ready to do its duty to make sure the EU’s Facebook users are having their data harvested only as described by the company. The ICO was granted new special powers to explore Facebook’s specific data-gathering computer code to ensure compliance with the EU’s privacy laws.

Investors are rethinking what to make of Facebook as well. Managers of several ‘socially responsible’ investment funds thought little of the company’s potential risk as an epicenter of scandal a couple of years ago. But, environmental, social and governance (ESG) minded funds run by the likes of Eaton Vance and Domini Funds have already booted FB stock from their portfolios for its questionable decisions. Other funds are voicing the same concerns.

Meanwhile, many investors have also expressed a new-found unwillingness to own a stake in the company until clear changes have been made.

Bottom Line for Facebook

A Facebook-killer? No, the company will likely be around and at the top of the social media pile for a long, long time. Consumers are unlikely to abandon the platform en masse, if only because their social circles are already also established on the website.

This degree action against the company though, that’s lasted for this long, is noteworthy. The matter isn’t going away, when it normally would have by this time. If anything, the backlash against Facebook and Zuckerberg is picking up steam again.

That said, while little else has prompted Zuckerberg to make the sweeping and tangible changes being called for from multiple directions, one matter has popped up that just might do the job. Proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Services has encouraged FB stock owners to vote against the company’s current risk-management plan and vote for one with tougher guidelines.

In light of Zuckerberg’s oversized degree of voting power, the last thing he may want to do is sow seeds of discord with an already-alarmed investor base. If prompted, they could start to work towards wrangling away his 60% control of the stockholder voting power.

Whatever the case or whatever’s in the cards, the outcry isn’t abating. One way or another, the Facebook of a year from now isn’t going to look like the Facebook of today. Most likely, it’s power as a data gatherer is going to be diminished, making the value of its ad inventory less-specific, and therefore less valuable to advertisers. Tuesday’s meeting with the European Union’s chiefs may well accelerate such change.

As of this writing, James Brumley did not hold a position in any of the aforementioned securities. You can follow him on Twitter, at @jbrumley.