Thread by @LinaSeiche

The #LibrainDC hearing confirmed that Facebook isn't telling the whole truth - again.

For 2 hours straight, David Marcus avoided questions on Calibra’s privacy terms, sneaking in small words/phrases to prepare loopholes that'll let Facebook monetise payment data in the future👇

Toomey: "Is it the plan to, at some point in the foreseeable future, seek the consent of the participants [of Calibra] so that you would be able to commercialise that data somehow?" [...]

Marcus: "I can’t think of any reason 👉 right now 👈 for us to do this."

Kennedy: Is there any data Facebook wouldn’t monetise?

Marcus: It’s not about making money.

K: Money is a secondary concern at Facebook?

M: The way we’ve done it with messaging apps, without monetising them 👉yet👈, is a testament to what we can do to lower cost for people.

Besides the ridiculousness of the statement that Facebook’s data collection is not about making money, in fact, Facebook IS monetising WhatsApp:

facebook.com/business/help/…

Mendenez: If there's a co-mingling of [Facebook’s & Calibra’s] data, can you commit that you'll notify the users and public within 48 hours of your finding?

Marcus: We'll notify the users and public 👉within a reasonable timeframe👈.

M: That could mean a whole bunch of things.

Calibra’s privacy terms show a similar use of small words and phrases to keep all options open for Facebook. The document itself already announces that its content is subject to change.

That (allegedly) none of this will happen without user consent is meaningless -

McSally: "Do users have to consent in order to use Calibra?"

Marcus: Yes.

McSally: "So that’s really no choice. In order to use it, your data has to be collected. There’s no option to opt out."

Facebook is keeping its options open to adjust Calibra's privacy terms in the future and eventually monetise financial data.

You might say this is assuming bad intentions - but with a track record like Facebook’s, we cannot give Calibra OR Facebook the benefit of the doubt.