Since everyone seems to want to write profiles on Javi Olivan (Facebook's new COO), a nudge there's a lot of material in their lawsuits as he's long played a key role without public attention. He features widely in the 000s of leaked pages in six4three case (see NBC News). /1
He was a key lieutenant in decision to weaponize enforcement of FB's APIs/data reciprocity growth hacking plus acquiring Onavo to spy on users to identify competitive threats. In a hint to Onavo real purpose, it reported into his part of the org. see FTC and private suits. /2
The surveillance of the market using Onavo is how Facebook also identified WhatsApp's rocket growth to the point of paying ~$19B for a company with barely any revenue because, IIRC from the docs, Olivan had waved red flag of risk if Google acquired it. See antitrust suits. /3
Olivan also was very much in the loop on the inflated potential reach metrics that were shown to most advertisers. Now part of Facebook whistleblower complaint to SEC and a fraud claim from a now certified class action lawsuit in NdCal. /4
I believe Olivan has been deposed several times, something Sandberg avoided, so it will be interesting if this further exposes FB. His "Growth Team" included Alex Schultz, who always seemed to be a major risk area for FB, including on the SUMA and fake accounts management. /5
and will end with a link to thread on why this all matters...
I heard this may be coming. I would be fairly certain it’s also a sign things are about to get real. On my short list: a-NDCal just denied transfer of section 1 market rigging claim so FB is fighting a potentially criminal allegation of market rigging based on her signature. /1
b-internal investigation by FB of report that Sandberg used FB market power to interfere with a UK news org
c-lawsuit in Delaware by second largest pension fund with insider trading allegations against Sandberg /2
d-certified class for suit with fraud allegation where Sandberg key lieutenant
e-fingerprints all over some pretty nasty moves including chaos in Australia
f-13yrs of personal discovery just underway in consumer protection lawsuit in NDCal from Cambridge Analytica cover-up /3
Popping a myth fed by Google lobbyists and friendlies in three tweets: “When these small publishers announced the formation of their collective bargaining group last November, several were critical of the News Media Bargaining Code.” 1/3
“If the code hadn’t been introduced, we wouldn’t have gotten anything. So I’m grateful that the code was introduced, I’m grateful that there were mechanisms under Australian law that allowed us as small publishers to navigate the system.” 2/3
“three of the participating publishers told Press Gazette their deals would provide a significant financial boost.
‘Suffice to say, it was a great outcome for all of us.’” 3/3 pressgazette.co.uk/australia-news…
Lol, on this note, let me share a brief but true story press never dug into.
-LiveRamp’s parent company (Acxiom) lost nearly 35% of its market value in immediate aftermath of mar 18 reporting on Cambridge Analytica scandal when FB “announced” it would tighten data practices. 1/5
-Barely 6 weeks later I was asked to sit on a 5/31/18 panel at a very popular adtech and banker conference along with the CEO of LiveRamp’s parent company (Acxiom) that was conveniently moderated by one of Acxiom’s key board members. 2/5
-I randomly found out same acxiom board member was meeting at a different location privately right after our 5/31 panel with guy at center of FB scandal (Aleksandr Kogan) who sold tens of millions of personal data records to Cambridge Analytica leading to FB $5B settlement. 3/5
THIS IS SOOOO DAMN GOOD. For anyone and everyone from pundits to lobbyists to academics who have explored or covered Australia's News Media Bargaining Code which led to Google and Facebook (to a lesser extent) starting to pay for journalism, this a must-read 13 page report. /1
The author, former Chair who headed Competition office and its original, brilliant investigation which led to the Code, breaks it down into 5 parts:
A - logic of Code
B - essential features
C - negotiations
D - results
E - myth busting the critics /2
(A) - Logic. Original multi-year ACCC Platform inquiry is amazing read analyzing competition issues with Google and Facebook. It includes 23 recommendations of which 9 linked to journalism and media. This Code represented just one of them - so never intended to be a panacea. /3
ok, I promised I'd come back on this. This complaint vs Zuckerberg is a good read, takes into account what we've learned in DC, Canada, UK, DE, NdCal, etc. Anyone who thinks it's simply about CA "snake oil" and 2016 election is still living off their 2018 hot takes. Dig deeper /1
It also very clearly gets right many of the facts which Facebook distorted in the press and other places over the last few years. Facebook's data was indeed sold, Facebook knew it was sold, did very little to deal with it and the timeline exposes them and Zuckerberg. /2
If you want a 2-part example what I'm talking about (1 of 2). Facebook, including Zuckerberg under oath and in his major exclusive with CNN, led everyone to believe when FB found out they immediately had the people involved sign legal agreements they deleted the data. /3
Aah, Google is now putting out statements regarding the massive adtech bill introduced yesterday by antitrust leadership in both parties in both chambers. They had to say something and you can learn a lot from Google's statements. Shall I break them down? /1
Narrative from those who swim in current adtech business - it won't hurt Google much if they have to divest adtech biz - this belief is critical to G's defense. We've seen it with privacy laws, too. You can learn real truth by how Google and its reps fight behind closed doors. /2
to believe divestiture of adtech won't hurt G, you must ignore:
(a) majority of G's data is 3rd party not 1st
(b) antitrust momentum limiting its gatekeeping (browser/OS/search)
(c) G's use of market power over demand/DSP as choke point to drive revenue to search and YouTube /3