,
32 tweets,
18 min read
Read on Twitter
Currently watching archived video of Facebook and Google at International hearing with 14 Parliaments earlier this week. Highlight thread of video coming. I think you'll enjoy it. Talk soon.
OK, I've got them, 20 highlights but first the opening included remarks from both UK and Canadian lawmakers on Facebook ignoring subpoenas plus a vote for an open summons of CEO Zuckerberg and COO Sandberg to have them appear if they visit Canada for work or play. (1 of 3)
All three major party leaders on the Canadian Committee had strong remarks and the entire committee voted unanimously on the open summons. (2 of 3)
And Ian Lucas from UK Parliament weighed in, too, where they have also seen an outright refusal by Facebook's CEO to answer key questions for more than a year. (3 of 3)
OK, on to the 20 highlights I picked. #1 Hearing began strong with (Conservative) @DamianCollins pressing Facebook for answers why they weren't removing doctored @SpeakerPelosi video (note: the entire hearing was refreshingly non-partisan and this was a good line of questions).
actually, I'm going to sort by topic. #2 antitrust: @beynate asked really smart questions about competition law whether privacy should matter. His reference point was German Cartel Office decision vs Facebook which said consent can't be voluntary with Facebook's dominance. 1 of 3
#2 antitrust: later we heard questions from German lawmaker (great thing about International Grand Committee) who also asked about Cartel Office decision to bar sharing of data across WhatsApp, Instagram, FB and why they opposed it. (this decision is one FTC should mirror) 2 of 3
#2 antitrust: towards end of hearing, @beynate had chance to circle back to his question whether data and privacy should be considerations in mergers and competition. Their answers were terrible, they clearly don't want competition policy to intersect with core biz model. 3 of 3
#3 hate speech: Singapore delegate spent his time on hate speech posted on Facebook in Sri Lanka. Facebook confirmed it was hate speech, it clearly is, nevertheless Facebook chose not to remove it according to the lawmaker. It happened in Sri Lanka ahead of massacre. 1 of 3
#3 hate speech: the example Sri Lankan post read from his handout is just awful and it's hard to understand how AI wouldn't have caught it. This is the type of issue where everyone needs to find it deeply troubling advertisers continue to subsidize this company. 2 of 3.
#3 hate speech: closing line of questions regarding Sri Lankan post. Facebook has no good answers. I was frankly disgusted during this five minutes. they deny their biz model isn't the issue but it absolutely is. similar to @KamalaHarris questions of Sandberg last Fall. 3 of 3
#4 privacy law: @CharlieAngusNDP isn't happy about Facebook's claims Canada doesn't have jurisdiction over its own citizens in its recent finding that Facebook broke privacy laws (especially after prior findings in 2009).
#5 surveillance biz model: @daviddbgraham gets to heart of biz models -collecting people's data for profit - asking Google and Facebook very uncomfortable questions about their biz model. Google claims to track "behaviors" or "actors." Someone in audience laughs out loud.
#5 surveillance biz model: Google's very controversial Sidewalk Labs project in Toronto was a regular theme over the two days. When Google was asked about it, they very clearly ducked. Bigger point here is conservatives and progressives in complete agreement on the problem.
#6 content moderation: more questions about Sri Lanka bombings. these questions more focused on Facebook's (poor) content moderation and how disturbing video can stay up long after a massacre.
#7 algorithm liability: smart line of questions again by @beynate asking about liability for platforms' algorithms when they are providing velocity and reach to harmful content. I project this becomes a wider conversation in US as it relates to CDA 230 which gives broad immunity.
#8 platform moderation: @DamianCollins asks related questions about how Facebook penalizes accounts involved in sharing hate, live massacres (using Christchurch as an example).
#9 algorithmic accountability: @beynate asks each of the platforms whether they have proper assessments for their algorithms. they are happy to answer. part 1 of 2
#9 algorithmic accountability: @beynate then hits them with the chaser asking each of them to provide these internal risk assessments to Parliament ... which they all bob and weave on. part 2 of 2
#10 Ireland: Facebook's European home country has several lawmakers in town to ask questions. @lawlessj expresses how disappointed he is with witnesses and how extraordinary it is Facebook claims to not know items from recent hearings and failed to act.
#11 Elections: this was quite something even causing @frankbaylis to ask Google, "are you serious when you say that?" as he asks why Google doesn't have enough time to archive election ads into a database in six months. Their answer just doesn't fly. Part 1 of 2
#11 Elections: @frankbaylis continues to press which is fair considering the extraordinary resources of google. Part 2 of 2 (last 2 tweets relevant to @MarkWarner @amyklobuchar @LindseyGrahamSC re: Honest Ads Act).
#12 accountability: this is a huge one. @IanCLucas has been pressing for simple answers for 12+ months about the timeline/decisions on the Cambridge Analytica scandal. IMHO, this likely is the cover-up that implicates CEO/COO/others and it's why he won't testify. 1 of 3
#12 accountability: I can't imagine the patience of @IanCLucas (and @JoStevensLabour next to him) to hear Facebook say they didn't know about question. This has been subject of many correspondence...who knew what/when. Congress, FTC, SEC, state AG implications. 2 of 3
#12 accountability: I don't know Neil Potts, Facebook's Director of Public Policy. But when people choose to testify in place of their CEO and work for a company that has obfuscated truth on key questions impacting the globe, they should avoid a high horse of integrity. 3 of 3
#13 terms of use: @frankbaylis starts with "Google and Facebook, I don't like your terms of use. I don't like being spied on." This is @SenJohnKennedy's question put more nicely. Facebook's answer is garbage trying to sell interoperability/privacy vision.
#14 fake accounts: @DamianCollins asks about the 3+ billion accounts blocked considering 2+ billion users and appropriately asks questions about make-up of their activities. This is why I called for a 10yr audit of their purges in my Monday testimony.
#15 clear history: @DamianCollins asks FB for update on "Clear History" function. This is a feature CEO announced a year prior and they still can't give a season to expect it. It's a feature which hurts their surveillance ad biz but barely scrapes surface of solving user issues.
#16 sad comedy: in a mix of sad comedy, Facebook execs suggest they were nice enough to show up despite subpoenas for their CEO/COO showing significant disdain... completely disrespecting Parliaments globally. Meanwhile, some tasty sandwiches behind Chairman @bobzimmermp.
#17 shame: @bobzimmermp relays his being informed that the two Facebook employees testifying weren't in the top 100 executives at the company and closes transcript with final words of "Shame on Mark Zuckerberg and shame on Sheryl Sandberg for not showing up today." Ditto.
And I'm going to close thread with link back to my live tweet stream from the hearings. Hopefully, this was all helpful. Either way, thanks for the patience with my tweets this week as I know researchers find it useful and it's helpful for me, too.
One small favor if you found these useful. Retweet the stream and cc your Congress. Stay supportive of more hearings as they do get everyone smarter. US needs to show more leadership globally holding Facebook/Google accountable. CCing mine now. @MarkWarner @timkaine @RepDonBeyer
