Aah, Google->Stanford academic. I'm going to have to do this, aren't I? The only right answer here is that we don't know. The entire case was a gigantic cover-up, dust hasn't settled. There are VERY ACTIVE lawsuits from major pension funds and powerful AGs to get answers. /1 
Yes, many will reply to her with FB's PR spin that their methodology and targeting was "snake oil" but that’s still very much debated/confused on the actual data use and relative goals and impact but it's also irrelevant to the real issues at hand. Here is what we DO know. /2
We do know... Cambridge Analytica contracted with a purpose-built intermediary that laundered and sold Facebook data to them. We also know the intermediary's CEO testified under oath he told facebook what he was doing in Sep '15, months prior to the first Dec '15 press report. /3
We do know... intermediary's posted policy for data was at odds with Facebook's policy but we also know Facebook had very little enforcement except against competitive threats and commercial opportunities (see antitrust lawsuits and evidence). Plus again he says he told them. /4
We do know...his "equal partner" was hired by Facebook in Oct '15 and he also told them what they had done according to testimony. So suspiciously while Facebook used one partner as a scapegoat and called the activities fraudulently they kept paying the other partner as a FTE. /5
We do know... Facebook and Zuckerberg himself misled reporters and Congress on the case including the timing and execution of what Facebook called "legal certification" with Cambridge Analytica to delete the datas. As a lawyer, Daphne would be horrified by this agreement. /6
We do know... Facebook negotiated so Sheryl Sandberg wouldn’t have to answer questions about the Cambridge Analytica matter in the only time we know that she testified to Congress and under oath. She has completely avoided scrutiny here. /7
We do know... there were many other "Cambridge Analyticas" and the AG of Massachusetts has an active lawsuit regarding the audit of the FB's app ecosystem and its design, data policy, $, enforcement choices are also part of the FTC's antitrust case to break up Facebook. /8
We do know... US authorities were never able to get their hands on CA's servers or data and FEC just unsealed last week its attempts which ran until months ago. We also know from UK regulator FB never even followed up to investigate despite MZ testifying to Senate they would. /9
We do know... data protection laws matter here and the structure of the various entities related to Cambridge Analytica, its employees and their citizenship were all relevant and this was always opaque and leaves us (individuals and civil society) exposed going forward. /10
We do know... UK news channel 4 produced a really good documentary with new evidence of suppression using the breached data in Sep 2020. It was mostly missed by US press, along with a lot of above details, as narrative on CA was written off as too confusing or misunderstood. /11
We do know... Facebook's influencers flipped out over that word "breach" by the way which you probably know even better than us has a very specific legal definition in California which Facebook wanted to make clear didn't believe obligated them to inform their users. /12
We do know...(speaking of flipping out) we learned from a key reporter on the topic in the last few months that Facebook PR had indeed worked to cover up the story in 2016/2017 until it broke wide open in 2018 a month after Facebook testified falsely to Parliament on it. /13
We do know... AG Racine in DC has a very active 2018 lawsuit now in discovery on all things Cambridge Analytica - and recently added Mark Zuckerberg to it. Pushing for discovery and depositions of FB key leadership. Facebook's next motion is due next Wed - 11/24. ie ACTIVE. /14
Where we have smoke... Facebook paid $5.1B to settle with SEC/FTC and avoided depositions and discovery of leadership. Again, the second largest pension fund in US has an active lawsuit now including insider trading charges about the cover-up and governance issues on it. /15
Where we have smoke...board evidence in same lawsuit is Facebook terminated PWC's audit of Cambridge Analytica before completion - this parallels UK regulator statements. Despite MZ testifying FB needed to investigate to get answers FB chose not to investigate to get answers. /16
Where there is smoke...Mark Zuckerberg very awkwardly stumbled or did a deer-in-headlights during testimony when he was thrown curve balls about Cambridge Analytica cover-up under oath in two separate hearings. There are clear dodges in answers that beg above investigations. /17
Where there is smoke...CA's Alexander Nix and Trump's Brad Parscale both falsely testified to House Intel about campaign tactics and CA's role. Parscale had a meltdown involving SWAT team same days evidence surfaced in Sep 2020 which was at odds with his version of events. /18
I managed to butcher and also duplicate much of this thread so attaching the last few tweets here. Sorry for the mess. And the very first tweet wasn’t criticism of the academic but justification for responding.
https://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1461367308354416649
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
