This is a key point because it helps define what Haugen's testimony has done today. She is launching what might be called the third phase of Facebook vs. democracy. Just some thoughts. . 1/
https://twitter.com/cwarzel/status/1445425274242224129
The first phase, pre-2016, was defined by Zuckerberg's defense of a platform filled with hate. He would always claim "FB (or "I", as he liked to say) shouldn't be in the business of deciding what is true or not." This seemed conceptually pleasing 2/
and had the benefit of making Zuck seem the reluctant power player. He didn't want that kind of power! We didn't want him to have that power! After 2016 -- election, hate, radicalization, foreign influence, security -- that was a hard defense to sustain. 3/
During the second phase, it became clear that FB's claim that it didn't want to decide what should be on the platform was, in fact, a decision. By "deciding not to decide," the platform was giving equal footing to the lies, hate, radicalization, anti-science, ickiness. 4/
Our public policy and national security debates became about getting this stuff off the platform then. But that was wrong. Haugen introduces this essential 3rd phase: in fact, Zuck and FB had decided at the start. The original defense -- deciding not to decide -- was a lie. 5/
The decision was affirmatively made to favor the hate, violence, radicalization, anti-democracy, anti-science elements through the algorithm. Folks on the outside knew this, understood this. But now it is clear FB embraced it. Zuck was an eager power player. He had decided. 6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
