NEW: On @pbsnewshour David Brooks addressed our reporting about Weave, its funding & lack of disclosure. He made at least two false statements incl. claiming Facebook funding was publicly disclosed. It wasn’t until we reported it. I’ll explain, you watch:
@pbsnewshour When asked about him taking funding from FB he says: "Yeah first we totally did disclose it because everything is public.”
He never mentioned FB funding in any columns or publicly.
The Facebook funding of Weave was made public in our report about Brooks writing a blog post for FB's corporate website. He never disclosed, nor did Aspen. Our first story revealing FB funding for Weave: buzzfeednews.com/article/craigs…
Second, Brooks says "The Aspen Institute is completely transparent about who the donors are, and so we released the donors."
False. The only info released is for restricted grants in 2018. I asked @AspenInstitute to release *all* donors for Weave and it has so far refused to.
Third, Brooks says, "I have not meaningfully written about any individual or organization who has supported us, including Facebook."
Here's the thing he did not address, and it's hugely important: Brooks *never* disclosed to Times readers that he took a salary at Weave. He *never* told Times readers who Weave has taken money from.
The fact he does not address or seem to think it's important speaks volumes.
On Thursday I asked @AspenInstitute to release info about all Weave donors. It delayed and never said if it will.
Tonight @nytdavidbrooks falsely said all donor info is public. Now there's no excuse. Do what Mr. Brooks said you've already done and release it. You have my email.
If you want to read more background on the whole David Brooks mess, here's a previous thread:
BREAKING: David Brooks has resigned from his position at the Aspen Institute following our reporting — and new revelations — about conflicts of interest between the star NYT columnist and funders of a program he led for the think tank: buzzfeednews.com/article/craigs…
Something new we discovered: On March 15 of last year Brooks appeared on Meet The Press and said: "I think people should get on Nextdoor, this sort of ‘Facebook for neighbors.’”
Left unsaid: Nextdoor, a social network for neighborhoods, had donated $25,000 to Weave, his project.
A day before his appearance on the nationally televised NBC program, Brooks also tweeted to his nearly 250,000 followers, “If you know someone who lives alone, ask them to join NextDoor.”
NEW: NYT columnist David Brooks draws a second salary for leading an Aspen Institute project funded by Facebook, Jeff Bezos' dad, & others. He didn't disclose this to readers. The Times refused to say if the paper was aware of Brooks' second salary: buzzfeednews.com/article/craigs…
Facebook gave $250,000 in 2018 to help fund Weave, Brooks' project at the Institute. A few months later Brooks began promoting Weave in the Times. He never disclosed the FB money, his salary, or other funders. Weave received just over 1.5 million in 2018, the latest $$ available.
Along with columns about Weave, Brooks published Times columns that mention Facebook, its founder Mark Zuckerberg, and the company’s products without disclosing his financial ties to the social networking giant.
Totally shocked by this, and thrilled for the @BuzzFeedNews team. huge thanks to @RMac18 for being an amazing reporting parter and to @JohnPaczkowski@mat and eveyone who worked on these stories with us.
NEW w/ @RMac18: Mark Zuckerberg intervened to reduce penalties for Alex Jones and Infowars. His decision weakened FB's policies and prevented it from acting earlier against right wing groups like the Oath Keepers that stormed the Capitol, sources say: buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanma…
This story dives deep into how important content moderation/enforcement decisions get made at FB. It reveals how Facebook's powerful policy team, led by Joel Kaplan, repeatedly went against the company's own experts to intervene on changes for fears of conservative backlash.
A telling example: Ben Shapiro's page was promoted to people who do not follow it via "in feed recommendations." FB's own rules said not to promote political pages via IFR. Users complained. But FB didn't take action b/c public policy warned of a backlash. So the rules got bent.
NEW w/ @rmac18: Sources and exclusive documents reveal how Facebook’s $80 ad juggernaut has enabled a global economy of dishonesty where scammers, hackers, and disinformation peddlers rip off and manipulate people around the world. buzzfeednews.com/article/craigs…
FB has at times prioritized revenue over enforcement of policies designed to protect people who use its platforms. Example: A manager overseeing 45 ads contractors told them to ignore hacked accounts/violations as long as “Facebook gets paid” for ads via a valid payment method.
He framed it as a win-win when someone hacks a big page and uses their access to run ads: “Facebook gets paid, the bad actors get to run their ads to a larger market.”
He joined Facebook as a full-time risk investigations analyst in April.
SCOOP: Facebok employees collected evidence showing preferential treatment of right wing figures. FB policy ppl removed misinfo strikes from Breitbart, PragerU, and Diamond & Silk, according to internal docs. And FB fired a key employee who gathered info: buzzfeednews.com/article/craigs…
FB’s policy says publishers must contact a fact checker that gives the rating if they want to dispute it.
But the docs show that people such as VP of global public policy Joel Kaplan have intervened on behalf of conservatives like Charlie Kirk. In some cases checks were removed
In one case, Diamond & Silk appealed a “false” rating directly with the checker. It was downgraded to “partly false” on merit.
But then someone in “Policy/Leadership” at Facebook intervened and removed it and a previous rating on their page, according to internal convos.