Mark, with respect, if you’re really putting solving these issues ahead of your own self-interests: (1) stop posting important messages on Friday nights and (2) show up and give evidence to @CommonsCMS as answering their questions is a real step towards rebuilding trust.
OK, I read Zuckerberg’s blog post a 2nd (and 3rd!) time. Press should analyze it but I don’t believe it contains any new info. It’s an aggregation of previous disclosures and blog posts. Everyone should consider it PR to attempt to get control of story. /2 facebook.com/notes/mark-zuc…
I’ll take a shot at analyzing Mark’s post. First, Mark starts off by stating this is a 2018 priority. I find this rich since we wrote an urgent letter to Mark in 2016 and he instead went on a vaca / road trip around USA while his COO was on book tour. /3
nytimes.com/2017/05/25/tec…
nytimes.com/2017/05/25/tec…
Pro tip: Zuck shouldn’t use his personal leadership shifting services to mobile as analogy to trust him. Yes, it was a $$$ success headed into $FACE IPO but most experts believe his aggressive migration to capture mobile is precisely how the problems started in first place. /4
Um, not sure Facebook's resigned Chief Security Office agrees either. Or at least it would be good to better understand what and when Stamos didn’t agree along with how much $ is really being put into Security. These are issues requiring evidence and testimony at this point. /5
Hey hey! We agree with Zuckerberg here -> "But we've also seen how people can abuse our services, including during elections. Our responsibility is to amplify the good and mitigate the harm." /6
Zuck/FB attempting to take credit but worth pointing out, as @SenatorBurr did, that 3rd party security help was critical to this discovery. FB explains they’re working better with external groups (yes, a great thing) but failing to give credit when it works against narrative. /7
Consistent with how Facebook has one of the most profitable businesses in media, their fixes almost always explicitly push liability on to another group rather than recognizing any of their own. /8
If Facebook is going to continue to leverage the scale of the number ("billions") of purged fake accounts without differentiating between those blocked at sign-up vs actually getting thru they should break these numbers into durations: seconds v minutes v hours v months, /9
It was fairly obvious likely FB's single largest purge of fake accounts in 2017 - involving millions of accounts and manipulation of news pages - during pivotal clean-up period was buried from public & govt officials. So this statement should be considered fairly misleading. /10
Advertisers should care about this, too. Considering Facebook’s ability to prevent and suspend fake accounts is likely Facebook's most vital tactic to prevent advertiser fraud on its platform, I can’t see why this isn’t audited and creating significant concern in meantime. /11
In no way should anything related to Facebook's efforts in Myanmar be considered something to be proud of at this point => "we identified and removed a coordinated campaign in Myanmar by the military to spread propaganda." /12
“anyone?” huh. this is the typical example where their policies and intentions are stated but significantly divorced from reality of what actually happens. /13
Mark writes the politics scare tactic but conveniently skips over the option encouraged by UK regulators and major advertiser agency association to suspend all micro targeting and/or custom audience targeting for political ads until the dumpster fire is under control. /14
crazy example. This wasn't an issue of researcher improperly using data. He was working on behalf of a commercial entity that abused policy with a commercial deal to sell users' data to CA. FB buried scandal in NDAs and hired his partner for years rather than disclosing it. /15
I actually don’t believe this. Unless our government if going to give Facebook a massive fine ($1B+) if it broke the law under its FTC consent decree then I don’t buy that Facebook actually "has an incentive to work together." /16
Note while reading this conclusion: Reporters brought attention to these issues. Cambridge Analytica is a company who along with FB was found to have broken UK law. Parliament has asked Mark to give evidence many times but he refuses and can no longer visit United Kingdom. /17
