woah. this isn’t the first time we’ve seen this with Facebook. if these allegations are accurate and Facebook’s COO (Sandberg) and CFO (Wehner) knew the metrics were inflated yet deliberately chose not to fix or even disclose this, Sandberg and Wehner should both resign.
Needless to say, it looks like there is a lot of important information being redacted. I can't possibly believe the redactions are defensible as commercial secrets. Will be watching this closely. Sunlight is the best disinfectant here, public awareness is critical.
As I said in the case of FB's inflated video metrics, my concern was how Facebook acted AFTER it was aware of the issue. You can learn about a company by how they act after they discuss an issue. FB leadership has already lost all trust based on previous documented cover-ups.
and needless to say .... of course it's Friday night.
a reminder why when I testified before 14 Parliaments from around the world, I called for a 5-10 year independent audit of Facebook's verification procedures and decisions to purge or authenticate accounts. cc @IanCLucas@bobzimmermp@CharlieAngusNDP@DamianCollins@beynate
Woah #2 And WSJ with even more 👀 details. “‘My question lately is: How long can we get away with the reach overestimation?’ one employee wrote, according to the Thursday filing.” wsj.com/articles/faceb…
And for those who argue all media reach has inaccuracies, I remind you the entire premise of Facebook, it’s verified single identity, is to provide deterministic targeting based on thousands of points of surveillance.
ps my tweet 927 days ago for those who don’t think I’m persistent in shining a light on falsehoods in our industry 😂
Well said. In a tweet, Facebook deceived and covered up the real harms exposed by its core surveillance business model. When Congress, FTC and SEC allowed them to settle for $5B+, Apple stepped in and rightly treated Facebook’s tracking us as a real security risk. Here we are.
ps there is no empirical research I’ve seen to suggest limiting tracking is good for Google like it is for Apple. Apple’s revenue comes mostly from end consumers. Google, just like Facebook, gets most of its revenue from advertising and a majority of its data from 3rd parties.
The trick for Google is to leverage its market power, browser dominance, search dominance, operating system dominance and adtech buying/selling dominance to invent a new way to track users and then label it “privacy” in the interests of web. Much better position than Facebook.
Wow. Late Friday, Gibson Dunn, the law firm shielding Facebook in Cambridge Analytica cover-up suits, appeared to tell DC Court "discovery is over" despite NdCal Court just last week inviting plaintiffs file for sanctions of Facebook and the firm for obstructing discovery. /1
It seems Gibson Dunn even took the words of the new Judge on the case from the last hearing and attempted to reframe them as if he also said discovery is over although anyone following the hearing would realize the different context of his wanting to push it along. /2
Facebook even argues it only claims privilege on communications of "only a small portion" of its employees *which is entirely false.* About 4,200 Facebook employees were in its privilege log which was filed publicly before they asked to also have it covered up, too. /3
Lol. Let me explain privacy laws headed toward enforcement (CPRA, GDPR) and gatekeeper laws (Digital Markets Act) plus those that do both (eg German federal cartel office decision and antitrust lawsuits based on data abuse). In other words, RIP Facebook surveillance biz model. /1
This message from a company that has actual fraud allegations against it for knowingly inflating its potential reach metrics causing advertising buyers to shift their overall spending mix after settling other elevations of knowingly reported false metrics. Evidence unsealed. /2
When these companies say their Facebook rates went way up, pls make sure to ask if 1) they’ve found other ways to reach their audience and 2) how their biz is doing overall. Welfare and revenue shifts. Facebook’s problems are opportunities for others more focused on consumers. /3
“Throwback Thursday” (whatever happened to that?). Facebook stock crossed key milestone yesterday - dropping below its July 2018 high - #tbt /1 cnbc.com/2018/11/20/fac…
That was FBs 2018 peak after rebounding from Cambridge Analytica. The reason FB recovered was public treated it as a data leak rather than cover-up. @sal19’s report came a week after only time Sheryl Sandberg testified to Congress - no questions were able to be asked about it. /2
Fast forward four years, multiple whistleblowers, significant harms, Apple kneecapping FB’s surveillance. 14yrs of discovery on Sandberg and Zuckerberg’s messages was just ordered by courts, deposition of Zuckerberg and shareholder derivative lawsuits underway, SEC looming. /3
A few thoughts on this massive settlement for Facebook allegedly tracking users across the web even after they logged out, yes we flagged these issues in a WSJ op-ed back in 2014 when Facebook did a "bait and switch" to monetize this data after promising publishers otherwise. /1
It's worth noting for those who follow me closely, this isn't even a case I have mentioned recently. I say that to you as an indicator of how many lawsuits and how much Facebook has likely violated consumer expectations, civil society, markets and democracy globally. /2
I think this single line in the summary arguments may end up being most interesting as it moves the line in data abuse by a major platform beyond individual privacy harm to economic harm even if the value of the data isn't transferred but instead copied/replicated. /3
Pretty good report on the earth shaking decision that the IAB’s consent framework and related pop up spam in Europe is illegal. Two unfortunate perspectives included in the piece that i’d like to flag to everyone. /1
This data point is highly misleading and comes from the same group behind the framework at issue. For actual legit quality publishers, these types of ads are very much a minority of the ad revenues albeit they’re a majority of the impressions. That’s part of the problem. /2
This business professor shows up whenever there is a need to lobby the surveillance advertising and adtech lobby pov. I don’t get it. Regardless I would strongly urge no one go to him for legal advice. Strongly. /3