ok, I’ll bite - at the dinner table. You had this super broad exclusive interview with Sheryl Sandberg prior to launching your podcast in Feb 2020. Candidly, what do you think of her answers after the WSJ series this week?
I mean, looking back, this really really seems disingenuous considering her role and what we learned this week in WSJ’s Facebook Files. Right?
I mean Facebook is not remotely close to this now that we’ve seen the way they’ve operated behind the scenes, the research and policies they’ve had and ignored to protect the core biz model which you called out quite a bit.
Three specific examples. First, this was simply false. She told you they had already announced plans to merge apps before antitrust threatened when they actually announced it after German Federal Cartel Office decision to silo their apps was known to them. They then scrambled.
Second, also false, they actually used - arguably fictional - “user contracts” as their GDPR legal basis and its led to many many investigations and the first enforcement decision against FB for nearly $300mm.
Third, one more. According to Monday’s WSJ report, the humans set millions of peoples’ accounts to be exempt from the rules even letting Neymar spread revenue porn to over 50 million views. Makes this comment disturbing.
So in all seriousness, she sat there and misled you about a ton of information. Would you still allow her to the dinner table? What are your thoughts on that interview. Break the 4th wall, even if it upsets the almighty Facebook. Thx. Cheers and good luck.
Oh and here is the full podcast if anyone wants the full context. Start at the top. nbcnews.com/podcast/byers-…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So many mind blowing sentences in this just incredible Wall Street Journal report. Starting here, “Witkoff, who hasn’t traveled to Ukraine this year, is set to visit Russia for the sixth time next week and will again meet Putin. He insisted he isn’t playing favorites.” /1
“Inside were details of the commercial and
economic plans the Trump administration had been pursuing with Russia, including jointly mining rare earths in the Arctic.” /2
“European official asked Witkoff to start speaking with allies over the secure fixed line Europe's heads of state use to conduct sensitive
diplomatic conversations. Witkoff demurred, as he traveled too much to use the cumbersome system.” /3
Saturday’s “No Kings” protests have filled front pages across America with impactful visuals and headlines of peaceful protests. Many included the eye popping NYC Times Square shot. Here in the Dothan Eagle (Alabama). But everyone turned out. See Montana in its Missoulian. /1
Plenty of big city energy from St. Louis, Missouri to Chicago, Illinois. /2
Midwest with Cleveland, Ohio to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. /3
US v Google remedies: Nothing groundbreaking from return of DOJ’s star economist this morning. Court tested if his concerns over solely behavioral remedies assume distrust in Google (won’t follow court orders). I don’t think it mattered relative to where we were last night... /1
Yes, some will read as leaning against structural-remedy interest. I took it simply her clarifying she doesn’t need to lean on distrust if structural is shown tech feasible. Although witness pointed out distrust harms competition investment levels. /2
Court also very much nodded head when witness Lee explained why he didn’t do “but for” analysis to a dollar amount. Mehta also determined in search it was infeasible and unnecessary so cross that out of Google’s defense imho. /3
ok, this is HUGE. Late Friday, Penske (PMC) filed a wicked-smart, landmark antitrust lawsuit against Google. I've now read it in full and I'm very impressed. Importantly, it's the first antitrust suit for Google tying its AI-driven products to its adjudicated search monopoly. /1
The core claim: Google is abusing its search monopoly to force pubs to hand over content - not just for traditional search indexing but to feed its AI. Google then repurposes it to substitute them with its own services breaking the fundamental bargain of the open web. /2
Penske says this is not a fair exchange. If it weren't for Google's adjudicated monopoly power (recall Judge Mehta said they get 19x as many queries as next biggest), Google would be paying pubs for these rights or if it didn't then they would opt-out of providing them. /3
OK all ye people depressed Judge Mehta didn't order Google broken into bits this week. I'm here to cheer you up. DOJ has its other remedies trial in 16 days and just posted its PFJ (Proposed Final Remedies) now 60+ pages of brilliant detail. Let me walk you through key terms. /1
This is the 2023 US v Google adtech win - the one DCN and its premium publishers have long been much more deep and focused on. Here’s what it means for publishers of all types - and why it will be a massive win for the open web if Judge Brinkema signs on (I believe she will). /2
First, clear structural remedies. Google must divest AdX, its ad exchange, w/in 2yrs and likely DFP, its publisher ad server. No more vertical ad stack monopoly with interest conflicts. This would finally decouple tools Google can use to rig auctions and suppress pub revenues. /3
All eyes at Google on streaming NFL game tonight but Google Inc and its many monopolies have had quite the week. I’ve been absorbing on this end, some quick Friday thoughts on things missed. Bad news certainly for the public, and also DCN members, in US v Google Search case. /1
Judge Mehta said "no thanks" to helping publishers - because he said no pubs testified. Maybe that’s what retaliation fear looks like??? He also noted the unlawful conduct was about distribution deals, not deals with publishers. More on that in a minute. /2
Despite Mehta finding Google illegally maintained its 95%+ search monopoly with browser deals, he also said it’s OK for Google to keep owning Chrome - the world’s biggest browser - so they can keep paying everyone else and free riding on their own browser. All bad here. /3