Thread by @KevinCoates

There is a lot - *a lot* - of hyperbole about the tech giants and the need, or lack of need, for regulation. And a lot of attempts to manipulate the debate. (1/30)

This is a thread to highlight a couple of the techniques being used, based on this tweet:

https://twitter.com/AuerDirk/status/1425395557422542851

(2/30)

Step 1. paraphrase arguments inaccurately to make them seem more absolute than they are; (3/30)

Step 2. Include some information to counter - purportedly - the absolute arguments that you have presented; (4/30)

Step 3. By implication, suggest by the above that the relevant legal standard for intervention is or should be the absolute version of the arguments that you have presented, effectively justifying non-intervention. (5/30)

How does this work in practice? From the tweet I linked above... (6/30)

Take a statement about the past: (7/30)

"Facebook has held an unassailable position in the social network market for nearly a decade, demonstrating its monopoly power." (8/30)

And turn it into a prediction for the future: (9/30)

"Facebook has an unassailable monopoly." (10/30)

Take a statement about the commercial advantages of certain practices: (11/30)

"Google's practice has therefore reduced the incentive of manufacturers to pre-install competing search and browser apps, ... (12/30)

... as well as the incentives of users to download such apps. This reduced the ability of rivals to compete effectively with Google." (13/30)

And present those advantages as absolutes: (14/30)

"Apps can't reach consumers without preinstallation and favorable placement." (15/30)

Take a statement about the commercial advantages of being the leading player on a market with network effects: (16/30)

"The convenience of using a technology or a service increases with the number of users that adopt it. Consequently, ... (17/30)

... it is not enough for a new entrant to offer better quality and / or a lower price than the incumbent does; it also has to convince users of the incumbent to coordinate their migration to its own services." (18/30)

And again present those advantages as absolutes: (19/30)

"Network effects prevent the emergence of new rivals." (20/30)

Bonus: this paraphrase ignores a sentence *in the same paragraph* of the source: "The size of this "incumbency advantage" depends on a number of factors, including the possibility of multi-homing, data portability, and data interoperability." (21/30)

Finally, compare these all to something that - arguably - demonstrates the absolute statements are wrong. Here, by linking to this BBC article - bbc.com/news/business-…- on the rise of TikTok... (22/30)

... and drawing the conclusion that Facebook is not the unassailable monopoly claimed in the first paraphrase. (23/30)

Sources:
This is the tweet that contains the "paraphrasing" of the arguments and the comparison:

https://twitter.com/AuerDirk/status/1425395557422542851

(24/30)

This is the tweet that, in response to my question about whether these are paraphrases, and confirms their sources:

https://twitter.com/AuerDirk/status/1425475880219029507

(25/30)

So here are some ways that you can try and avoid being misled: (26/30)

- ask yourself whether the arguments presented are the actual arguments put by one side of a debate, or are they being paraphrased by an opponent? (27/30)

- If they are not the actual arguments, find out what the actual arguments are; (28/30)

- Don't assume that either side is accurately presenting a legal standard for intervention. Work out what that legal standard is / should be. (29/30)

And, of course, whenever dealing with "think tanks" and other lobby groups, ask #WhoFundsYou? (30/30)

@threadreaderapp Unroll