I think I've pinned down all the analysts, academics and lobbyists who are on Team Facebook and Google. They keep sharing each other's material yelling "Link tax!" "Murdoch!" "Traffic!" over and over without seeking to correct their own loaded analysis to reality..
🤦🏽♀️ too many people aren’t up to speed on Australia and repeating each other’s bad takes. notion a tax would be a better solution than a mandatory bargaining code is a bad take if you care about capitalism, news integrity, journalism and avoiding friction of regulated business.
The new law moving forward is super important to small and medium sized news in Australia and instructional to the globe. The number of mistakes I keep seeing and hearing in hot takes are off the charts.
OK, I relent. In my press to get hot takes more consistent with reality in Australia, I have pushed ppl to read 2yr ACCC report which is backbone to this public policy action. But yes it's 500pgs.
It provides antitrust context and outlines criticism almost entirely driven by (of course) Google and Facebook.
Although I do note they repeatedly cite a site founded by, partially owned by a Google employee, SearchEngineLand? I wonder if they even know this?🤦🏾♀️@JoshFrydenberg
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So 1) Facebook wants regulation...but not regulation that hurts its biz model. 2) Facebook thinks it’s anticompetitive of Apple to block FB from surveilling data across web/apps despite FB getting that data through deception and anticompetitive action according to German court.
3) Facebook wants to clean up toxic sludge yet blocks the most valued information when it could cost them money and power 4) Facebook wants to be neutral but curries favor with the government in power
5) Facebook wants to avoid content which is hate speech or dangerous to society yet refuses to have a conversation about algorithmic amplification and hugs free expression as a virtue.
Hey hey. A thoughtful, no-drama pov. I think it’s also interesting to note Australia will be a lesson to globe. Notable that tech lobby and its influence network doesn’t take issue with FB blocking news and $&@)ing with the entire public as a PR stunt way before the law, though.
In other words, Australia spent multiple years studying market concentration and an entire imbalance of power with two dominants. They’re putting in place a law avoiding some perils of regulation by innovating on a market solution. That’s good, yes? They took enormous input.
original ACCC is more than 500 pages. Yet US-based influencers and lobby for Google and Facebook are kicking and screaming about Australia because they know how this will work definitely? And their screams include mistakes showing they’re not even fully versed on the process/law.
hey all, lesson here. Twitter accounts posted doctored, deceptive video. this version alone approaching 4.9mil views. Beyond the acceleration and velocity provided by Twitter, a video with that many views from a news or entertainment org would be worth many thousands of $$$. Hmm.
5.5 million views. Here is what I would do:
- label any tweet with the video as manipulated
- remove retweet and Like functional from tweets with it
- block any tweet with the video from trending
- " " " " " " from any timeline except source's
not too hard... yes?
Hey y’all. We’re now at 9.3 mil views for a manipulated video. That’s a massive problem if it ends up being something influencing people in a harmful way. In this case, it’s probably just manufacturing enthusiasm for US space. Although if it was Russia, USG prob wouldn’t like it.
!!! more Facebook docs posted - including plaintiff's request for deposition of Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg. The Judge ordered the material in yellow to be unsealed after Facebook lost a long battle to keep docs redacted. 1/3
Ridiculous amount of redactions on this page. Now unsealed. Again, this is plaintiff's letter but it does include discovery on PR plan regarding inflated potential reach, SUMA (FB term for duplicate accounts), fake accounts and an apparent reversing of course by Sandberg. 2/3
Final page, again yellow is what Judge ordered unsealed. Claim that (now departed) VP under Sandberg didn't have any recollection of conversations...hence need to ask Sandberg questions who they say has 1st-hand knowledge. Get in line behind @AGKarlRacine among others. 3/3
woah, I have the unsealed docs here. this is the Facebook census / fake accounts case DCN filed to get unsealed for public interest. Judge recently ruled in our favor. So I guess here come the docs. And the apparent cover-up was once again worse than imagined. Sandberg.
Wow, this is really bad. I'll post my prior thread in a second. Just making my way through it. Yellow highlights are mine.
Here is the thread of the judge's ruling to unseal on Jan 11th, I sort of forgot about it with everything else. We're a party to the case since we filed to unseal. Docs must have started posting in the last few hours.
“Content-moderation decisions are momentous, but they are as momentous as they are because of Facebook’s engineering decisions and other choices that determine which speech proliferates on the platform, how quickly it spreads, which users see it, and in what context they see it.”
“It would also let Facebook off the hook for business practices that cause significant harm to democracy.”