Thread by @profcarroll

What incentives do social media companies really have to election integrity?

Seems negligible beyond PR crisis management when they can evade Congressional inquiry like this.

https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1062478824397553665

When they repeat “we are committed to election integrity” like the hymns of corporate gospel but then evade the tough questions by *our* elected representation, their whole song rings hollow.

R E G U L A T E

B I G

T E C H

C R I M I N A L

P E N A L T I E S

N O T

F I N E S

Facebook tells Senators that #CambridgeAnalytica wasn’t a “breach”

But the UK tells Facebook actually it was a breach of laws. Sorry, thanks for playing.

D a t a c r i m e s a r e
R e a l c r i m e s

( U N A C C O U N T A B L E )
( U N P R O S E C U T E D )
W h i t e c o l l a r
C r i m e
S o c i a l
( D I G I T A L )
D e c a y

_eof

U K I C O R E P O R T
V E R Y Q U I E T L Y
A N D P O L I T E L Y
G O E S B O O M

Folks, this ICO report minutiae is where NYT sources its buried lede in this recent FTC consent decree story. nyti.ms/2z7WJHv

In terms of open source information once that report dropped on election day we were operating in a world where a pure neutral regulator very subtly said a facebook breach illegally exploited for the trump campaign…

It’s a lot to process with all that’s been going on…I know.

I’m trying to distill this. It’s very complicated.

The British data cops nailed the Cambridge Analytica scheme for data crimes.

Nix, as CEO, admitted as such when pressed by @JamieJBartlett but never broadcast in the US per BBC licensing restrictions.

https://twitter.com/profcarroll/status/976095078673510400

It’s hard to grasp that these English data protection laws were drafted in 1998 imagining worst case scenarios then. They did an amazing job of foreseeing what rights might need to be intrinsic to democracy now. Many other countries are also enlightened.

The USA is not.

Y E T