Aah, Stanford researcher with a timely prompt. 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. There are very active lawsuits from major pension funds and powerful AGs to get answers. /1 
Yes, many will reply to her that their methodology and targeting was "snake oil" but that’s still very much debated on use and impact but it's also irrelevant to the real issues at hand. /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 completion of what Facebook called "legal certification" with Cambridge Analytica to protect their users. As a lawyer, Daphne would be horrified by the 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. /7
We do know... there were many other "Cambridge Analyticas" and the AG of Massachusetts has an active lawsuit regarding the audit of the entire app ecosystem and its design, data policy, $, enforcement priorities 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... UK news channel 4 produced a really good documentary with new evidence using the actual breached data in Sep 2020. It was mostly missed by US press, along with a lot of the above details, as the narrative on CA was written off as too confusing or misunderstood. /10
We do know... Facebook's influencers flipped out over that word "breach" by the way which you probably know 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. /11
We do know... AG Racine in DC has a very active 2018 lawsuit now in discovery on all things Cambridge Analytica - and recently named Mark Zuckerberg. Pushing for discovery and depositions of FB key leadership. Facebook's motion is due Wed 11/24. /12
Where we have smoke... Facebook paid $5.1 billion to settle with SEC/FTC and avoid depositions and discovery of leadership. Again, second largest pension fund in US has active lawsuit now including insider trading charges about the cover-up on the matter. /13
Where we have smoke...evidence in same lawsuit is Facebook terminated PWC's audit of Cambridge Analytica before completion - and this parallels UK regulator statements. Despite MZ testifying FB needed to investigate to get answers FB chose not to investigate to get answers. /14
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. /15
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 when evidence came out Sept 2020 which was at odds with his version of events. /16
There is a lot more here. But if you're going to ask for the definitive record, my answer is we don't know. We clearly know a number of key facts which aren't widely understood. We also have endless smoke which anyone wanting to get to facts would see as problematic. /17
If anyone needs footnotes for anything above, happy to provide but will save length of thread. Everything can be backed up by testimony, evidence or when reported is clearly labeled and from high-cred newsrooms. Also, some of this in this thread.🤷🏽♂️/eof
https://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1372264578499948551?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
