Threading thoughts from UK Parliament hearing with social media platforms. First up is Facebook including Antigone Davis who testified a few weeks ago to US Senate. @DamianCollins is already drilling down on FB's research very much exposing Facebook's negligence and spinning. /1
MP Collins did a breathtaking job in unpacking the issues, the lack of answers to accountability. Here is how he closed revealing only 4% of Facebook's $275B in profits went toward safety and security. Watch for the drink of the water glass. It’s a facebook tell. /2
This was after @DamianCollins probed on where decision making actually happens. In 2018, all answers were “the buck stops with Mark.” Now with the SEC complaints and plethora of lawsuits about governance, control, insider trading, it seems Facebook’s talking point went vague. /3
I’ll catch up and share thoughts from other MPs. Just focused on watching. Side note, remote evidence is such a problem here. Facebook’s Davis is clearly looking to her right of camera getting answer flip cards. /4
Baroness Kidron followed with probing on trust and whether or not Facebook is a system fit for purpose. She will later follow-up on whether there is a need for liability for directors since Facebook's policies are clearly not working. /5
Next up @MrJohnNicolson probed into the details of the Instagram research. He also asked why Apple needed to step in to get Facebook to actually step up its efforts to reduce use of its platforms for human trafficking. /6
Once again, we're back at trying to get a simple answer on who is the ultimate decision maker on the decisions to make adjustments to algorithmic amplification. Facebook once again dodges this, there is an obvious effort to avoid putting anyone's name to it - even the CEO. /7
wow, @DarrenPJones is new to me and providing outstanding line of questions. He starts with who/how Facebook's Davis reports into the Risk and Audit Committee of Facebook's board. She doesn't. This is the precise governance issue on table with several current lawsuits. /8
Several questions regarding Facebook's shutting off NYU researchers to they cannot study how Facebook microtargets and spreads content and ads. FB leans into scraping stating it's a privacy issue but says it's not about privacy and really makes no sense at all to any audience. /9
Bingo. Here was @MrJohnNicolson: “all of this suggests Facebook is an abuse facilitator that only reacts when you’re under threat either from terrible publicity or from companies for example like Apple that threaten you financially.” /10
Again, this was super weird. I didn’t know she and Potts report into Joel Kaplan who is a lightning rod and shouldn’t be anywhere near “safety and security” but then she skips over Nick Clegg and goes straight to the top. Why? And why doesn’t she know these answers? /11
Here was @darrenpjones. As the pension lawsuits in Delaware related to the $5B cover-up settlement claim, there is a lack of governance at Facebook driving lack of accountability. It’s also insane she doesn’t know the details of the bill. /12
Facebook’s answer is a mess here on why NYU researchers were cut off and falsely claimed it was a privacy issue. @DamianCollins gets in a point on Facebooks cover-up with Cambridge Analytica as he’s well-versed on it. /13 cc @LauraEdelson2
This exchange requires two clips (1 of 2 here) but is directly relevant to Facebook’s misleading hate speech prevalence metrics (3-5% spun into 98%) and ineffectiveness of their AI solutions which @dseetharaman broke down so clearly in episode 7 of the Facebook Files podcast. /14
This exchange requires two clips (2 of 2 here) but is directly relevant to Facebook’s misleading hate speech prevalence metrics (3-5% spun into 98%) and ineffectiveness of their AI solutions which @dseetharaman broke down so clearly in episode 7 of the Facebook Files podcast. /15
Questions specific to January 6th insurrection and Facebook’s recommendation of Stop the Steal and civic groups overall. Davis gets surprisingly irritated at the simple question of whether or not the changes were made before or after the US election. /15
You can judge but Facebook’s Davis certainly seemed to lose her cool then catches herself when @DamianCollins pressed on Facebook’s January 6th timeline. We’ve been here before on other matters. /16
Worth also posting this exchange also with @DamianCollins drilling down on the May 26, 2020 WSJ report from @dseetharaman@JeffHorwitz report that “64% of all extremist group joins are due to recommendation tools.” Her answers are remarkable. /17
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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