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
OK, I see we’ve left phase two where Facebook tries to pull in all of social media and now they’re turning it on the professional media creators. Listen, no doubt a free and plural media is messy and the public gravitates to channels they choose based on their trust. 1/3
But the independent media also broadcast out and provide for counter-speech and analysis. They do not provide accelerated velocity and reach by microtargeting into people’s attention based on likelihood to engage. They’re not at all comparable. 2/3
There are entire shows, columns and ad boycotts dedicated to criticizing what is on the air. I’ve seen networks get boycotted based on one show interviewing one person who also streams and gets promoted into social media feeds 24/7 by algorithms. Again, they’re different. 3/3
Important thing to understand on Facebook. It’s stock is only down 2-3% in a week from hell with its CEO on front of WSJ for everything from covering up and hiding findings on their role in aiding teenage harm, revenge porn, protecting elites, lengthening pandemic, et al. /1
As we know, 99% of Facebook’s revenues are advertising. Recently unsealed (aided by DCN) CFO emails show Facebook’s view is they don’t have risk or even need to inform investors unless an issue impacts advertiser decisions or results in actual regulatory activity against them. /2
So with this in mind, all of the outrage and famine days of horrific reports need to result in action by one of 1) advertisers, 2) state AGs, 3) Congress, 4) FTC, 5) SEC in no particular order. I would be copying them all and making sure they’re aware of your concerns. /3
Day 5. Ok, this one in the Facebook Files touches a sensitive area for me. Content moderation. It’s not as clear cut as the egregiousness of whitelisting a global celebrity athlete’s revenge porn (Day 1) but let’s get it into. /1
Yes, anti-vax opinions are problematic and when it’s disinfo it’s killing people. Rather than have Facebook pushing towards a binary debate on take-down / leave-up (aka censoring), we prefer to look at the core platform and how it provides velocity and reach to toxic sludge. /2
That said, there is enough in today’s WSJ report to make it clear that even assisting in a global pandemic is driven by PR and policy interests. Facebook is playing catch-up because of external pressures. If Trump was in the White House, their priorities would be different. /3
Facebook. The dam has broken. I’ve never seen anything quite like this. I’m not shocked by anything. Just surprised we’re finally starting to see it. And I’m surprised this way rather than a SEC investigation or something.
Although many of us have been deep-linking to the reports this week, I revisited the Wall Street Journal's front page and the packaging of their full Facebook Files investigation is really impressive (and horrific at the same time). wsj.com/articles/the-f…
And some may think the first tweet was cryptic, in addition to the Facebook Files (5 days so far) on WSJ, you should also have a look at this report last night.
Note the active voice correctly used here by the Facebook researcher: “our platform has given…” the only way @mosseri’s BS automobile analogy to @kafka sort of works is if the cars drive themselves. FB’s problem is its secret sauce provides velocity/reach for ads, too. /2
The free and plural media has been built off of consumer trust with brands serving as proxies for that trust whether Miami Herald, NYT, WSJ or Fox News. Imagine what happens when the algorithms are programmed for maximum engagement, profits and cause the below to happen. /3
beyond missing any form of economic analysis material to the legal and technical changes happening to limit gatekeepers and increase data protection, this report fundamentally confuses the public's concern - tracking of users around their lives - by focusing on "targeting." /1
There are countless ways to do "targeting." Many laws and tech are focused on limiting data collection and use to the apps, sites you're actually choosing to actually use. This isn't a problem for users. The term "surveillance advertising" comes from two other experiences: /2
(1) Users don't want their data collected and users for other purposes. If they're choosing to use Site A, they don't want Google, Facebook or some unknown adtech site mining their activities in the background to target them elsewhere in a different context. /3