Link to UK Parliament hearing - Facebook whistleblower starts momentarily. Chair of committee is @DamianCollins who led multi-party, impressive hearings in 2018/2019 and made himself into one of the smartest lawmakers on the planet regarding the issues. /1 parliamentlive.tv/event/index/cd…
For those who didn’t spend many hours tracking as Parliament DCMS investigated, tried to summons Zuckerberg to answer to cover-up and called them a ‘digital gangsta’, prepare for a session where they’re able to go deeper into dialogue and details rather than talking points. /2
As an example @DamianCollins is already diving into the mechanics of Facebook Groups and how they can amplify problematic engagement and recommend and organize groups and networks of groups around harmful themes. /3
Remarkable exchange between MP @MrJohnNicolson as he mashes with Facebook whistleblower on whether the company is “negligent,” “evil,” or “malevolent.” /4
I really like @DamianCollins follow-up here. It’s where an area where I feel pretty strongly and Facebook lost the most trust with me. Trust is earned based on how you act at a point of vulnerability. Once you know something harmful is happening, how did you deal with it? /5
I wasn’t expecting this line of discussion but 🙌🏼 it’s as if the Facebook whistleblower was a fly on the wall when I had direct access to Facebook and they failed to listen. /6
Good perspective why it’s not sustainable the only group that can ask questions and get answers from Facebook is Facebook itself. It’s important context we just learned from unsealed docs in lawsuit FB terminated PWC’s audit initiated by board after Cambridge Analytica breach. /7
wicked smart question as @DamianCollins connects dots between microtargeted amplification for advertising $$$ / profits and the microtargeted spread of harmful content. Yes, advertisers $100+B per year funds same systems that also spread harm. Profit > Civil society. /8
And @DamianCollins fact checks Facebook PR Nick Clegg’s silly misleading “two to tango” blog post putting blame of the users to accurately represent Facebook’s integral role in providing accelerated velocity and reach for harmful content. /9
In a sane world, this would freak investors on earnings day. Towards close of hearing we get to “Enron” discussion. First, whistleblower clearly points out the extraordinary percentage of new accounts which aren’t authentic (Facebook plays “denominator game” here, too). /10
And @DamianCollins rightly inquires why the ad sales wouldn’t be fraudulent. Whistleblower points to SUMA (actually means Single User Multiple Accounts based on evidence we helped unseal) and yes there is an active fraud lawsuit involving c-level. Will post thread below. /11
Here is a thread on SUMA, fake accounts, “potential reach” and advertising sales concerns and allegations including FT and WSJ reporting on them. /12
Bam. There is it. US Department of Justice has filed - requesting divestiture of Chrome as a remedy for court's finding against Google. Android at risk, too. /1
As it relates to Android, here is how DOJ puts it. Forced divestiture is option that "swiftly, efficiently, and decisively strikes at the locus of some anticompetitive conduct at issue here" but we're ok with tight behavioral remedies with option to divest if they don't work. /2
Revenue sharing for search default and/or preferential treatment - dead. Google's tens of billions to Apple - dead (last I saw it's about 15% of Apple's profits). Reminder, this all needs to be argued and approved by Court and then will get appealed. Still far off. /3
KA-BOOM. So when Google and its proxies (see so-called Chamber of Progress), friendly academics and analysts continue to suggest Chrome has nothing to do with the case, please ask them how many days they were at the trial. 1/3
This is super important. It’s an area @DCNorg (premium publishers) are intensely interested and concerned they get right around ability to restrict. The Court and trial made it clear they understood its importance during trial. We’ll be reading closely on Wednesday. 2/3
Here is the full report from Bloomberg who consistent with the entire trial showed up every day, did the hard work, and now got the massive scoop ahead of Wed filing. 3/3 bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
throwback time at Supreme Court today. Remember when Facebook looked away while data was harvested and sold to Cambridge Analytica (and other firms) ahead of 2016 election then covered it up? Topic finally hit SCOTUS - 10am (Kavanaugh not recusing would be outrageous). 1/3
basically facebook is trying to argue why it didn't need to disclose the "breach" despite never confirming it (2015-2018 which included elections) ahead of scandal going global in 2018. They've since somewhat successfully rewritten history on what happened thru soft press. 2/3
here is a link to oral arguments (supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments…) and a thread into more info. Justice Kavanaugh is best buds with a Facebook exec who was at center of scandal and cover-up. One hour of arguments (US Solicitor General, too). 3/3 x.com/jason_kint/sta…
Just before the clock struck midnight, the Dept of Justice and Google filed their updated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the adtech antitrust trial ahead of closing arguments (Nov 25th/EDVA). /1
Google clocked in at 787 pages, DOJ at 422. Much more reading but I found the most enjoyable sections to be DOJ's reminders of Google's evidence abuses along with killing the duty to deal arguments Google has been pumping through its tentacles of paid proxies. /2
"Google chose to train its employees about how to abuse the attorney-client privilege and destroy documents." This was a big freaking deal before the trial started, in all of Google's other antitrust trials and it will be here, too. Don't forget it. /3
Google break-up talks. Big hearing tomorrow fighting over discovery. One question unanswered is... YouTube. Where does it sit? Almost no mention in any of the trials (app store, adtech, search) although arguably one of the most significant "fruits" of G's monopoly abuses. /1
I use the word, "fruit," intentionally as case law says one of the four critical objectives in remedies is denying them and it's fairly unequivocal YouTube is YouTube due to the query+click scale of Google's 90%+ market share in search. YouTube is now #2 discovery surface. /2
Why hasn't YouTube come up more? I would argue it clearly wasn't needed to prove the liability in the trials. And Google's legal defenses have focused on trying to muddy the relevant market. Google worked hard but failed to bring in video (think TV, Netflix, TikTok) in market. /3
There it is. Confirmation directly from the Department of Justice that divestiture of Chrome, Android and/or Play are all on the table as remedies to Google's antitrust abuses. US DOJ's remedies framework just posted. Their final proposal is due Nov 20th. /1
It's a fairly broad, ten pages that starts by reiterating the findings of the DC Court and the duty to seek an order not only addressing the existing harms from Google's illegal conduct but - this is critically important - prevent recurrence going forward. /2
here are the listed findings in a tl;dr format. Note the point of illegal conduct for over ten years and the importance of scale and data. /3