So Facebook was absolutely torched earlier today at a hearing before Canada Parliament while trying to prevent legislation mirroring the Australia law they failed to stop which is now working as planned. Facebook torchings can be entertaining.
Shall I post some video? /1
First, some housekeeping up front by MP to establish when Facebook flipped out by blog post last Friday night by claiming it was never given an opportunity to testify and then threatened to block all news in Canada, it turns out Facebook never even requested to testify. /2
This was super interesting as questions turned to Facebook’s intentional chaos in Australia. MP probes whistleblower claim a FB special ops team handling Australia signed additional NDAs specific to the project and whether Canadians have also done same. Watch the squirming. /3
Lordy, when the MPs read through the WSJ whistleblower report on how Facebook allegedly worked to intimidate Australia parliament, it sounds worse every time. /4
MP then dives in deeper on the technical details of the whistleblower report which showed Facebook didn’t use a standard “canary method” to safely roll out blocking of news allowing many many pages of civil society, health and medical pages to also be blocked in process. /5
Another MP steps in, Facebook once again nailed down for “whining” about not being asked to testify then showing up and failing to answer legitimate questions of trust. Interruption midway by MP clearly running interference for Facebook (Conservative, more shortly). /6
Brutal. “The takedown is going according to plan.” /7
MP then labels Facebook’s threats and executions in Australia and Canada as “robber baron tactics.” New descriptor for me. But the shoe fits. /8
And a third MP steps up and again dives into the brutal details of the Wall Street Journal whistleblower report on Australia commending the importance of this good journalism up top. 🙏🏽 /9
“I was not involved” and “I am not aware as well” are the response of the two Facebook witnesses as to the incredibly damning actions and communications by Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg and Campbell Brown shared by the whistleblower to the WSJ and government agencies. /10
Also interesting line of questions to get at decision making and approvals from Zuckerberg. We’ve seen this show previously. The buck stops with MZ but decisions are made by an unidentified group. Of course, these people can’t block news for an entire country without MZ. /11
You’re damn right I ordered the code red. No, actually they continue to dodge answers but correct news won’t be blocked for 21 million people without approval from the very top. /12
Oooh. Super good question. MP notes how Facebook intentionally amplified and gave priority to authoritative news brands around the 2020 US elections which certainly calls into question Facebook’s argument news has no value to the company. /13
Wow, crazy to see MP jump in again to defend Facebook and its witness. Oh now, Facebook is being “badgered” she claims. Watch. It’s a bad look. You wouldn’t have this from either party in the U.S. /14
“I think Ms. Thomas watches too much Law and Order although it is good for the Conservatives to stand up and defend Facebook…” /15
To Facebook…ooomph. “do you know if your company is planning to threaten the government of the United States of America”…as it also has similar legislation before it. /17
Looping this with the live thread from the hearing. Again, this was Facebook testimony up in Canada today where Mark Zuckerberg still has an active subpoena to testify.
“They don’t want it to spread.” - @BGrueskin. For those who instead want to hear directly from a journalist on how the same code has worked in Australia and why FB wanted to isolate it there, I highly recommend @BGrueskin. He spoke to it here: .
Grueskin also published a written report around the same time the former chief of the Australian consumer and competition agency wrote his own which he testified to in Canada. All good.
Meanwhile credit to @Kantrowitz for being one of the few US reporters who tried to pin Facebook down when speaking to one of their top executives. Clegg says he didn’t want to do what they did in Australia which is quite a statement considering the above.
So many mind blowing sentences in this just incredible Wall Street Journal report. Starting here, “Witkoff, who hasn’t traveled to Ukraine this year, is set to visit Russia for the sixth time next week and will again meet Putin. He insisted he isn’t playing favorites.” /1
“Inside were details of the commercial and
economic plans the Trump administration had been pursuing with Russia, including jointly mining rare earths in the Arctic.” /2
“European official asked Witkoff to start speaking with allies over the secure fixed line Europe's heads of state use to conduct sensitive
diplomatic conversations. Witkoff demurred, as he traveled too much to use the cumbersome system.” /3
Saturday’s “No Kings” protests have filled front pages across America with impactful visuals and headlines of peaceful protests. Many included the eye popping NYC Times Square shot. Here in the Dothan Eagle (Alabama). But everyone turned out. See Montana in its Missoulian. /1
Plenty of big city energy from St. Louis, Missouri to Chicago, Illinois. /2
Midwest with Cleveland, Ohio to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. /3
US v Google remedies: Nothing groundbreaking from return of DOJ’s star economist this morning. Court tested if his concerns over solely behavioral remedies assume distrust in Google (won’t follow court orders). I don’t think it mattered relative to where we were last night... /1
Yes, some will read as leaning against structural-remedy interest. I took it simply her clarifying she doesn’t need to lean on distrust if structural is shown tech feasible. Although witness pointed out distrust harms competition investment levels. /2
Court also very much nodded head when witness Lee explained why he didn’t do “but for” analysis to a dollar amount. Mehta also determined in search it was infeasible and unnecessary so cross that out of Google’s defense imho. /3
ok, this is HUGE. Late Friday, Penske (PMC) filed a wicked-smart, landmark antitrust lawsuit against Google. I've now read it in full and I'm very impressed. Importantly, it's the first antitrust suit for Google tying its AI-driven products to its adjudicated search monopoly. /1
The core claim: Google is abusing its search monopoly to force pubs to hand over content - not just for traditional search indexing but to feed its AI. Google then repurposes it to substitute them with its own services breaking the fundamental bargain of the open web. /2
Penske says this is not a fair exchange. If it weren't for Google's adjudicated monopoly power (recall Judge Mehta said they get 19x as many queries as next biggest), Google would be paying pubs for these rights or if it didn't then they would opt-out of providing them. /3
OK all ye people depressed Judge Mehta didn't order Google broken into bits this week. I'm here to cheer you up. DOJ has its other remedies trial in 16 days and just posted its PFJ (Proposed Final Remedies) now 60+ pages of brilliant detail. Let me walk you through key terms. /1
This is the 2023 US v Google adtech win - the one DCN and its premium publishers have long been much more deep and focused on. Here’s what it means for publishers of all types - and why it will be a massive win for the open web if Judge Brinkema signs on (I believe she will). /2
First, clear structural remedies. Google must divest AdX, its ad exchange, w/in 2yrs and likely DFP, its publisher ad server. No more vertical ad stack monopoly with interest conflicts. This would finally decouple tools Google can use to rig auctions and suppress pub revenues. /3
All eyes at Google on streaming NFL game tonight but Google Inc and its many monopolies have had quite the week. I’ve been absorbing on this end, some quick Friday thoughts on things missed. Bad news certainly for the public, and also DCN members, in US v Google Search case. /1
Judge Mehta said "no thanks" to helping publishers - because he said no pubs testified. Maybe that’s what retaliation fear looks like??? He also noted the unlawful conduct was about distribution deals, not deals with publishers. More on that in a minute. /2
Despite Mehta finding Google illegally maintained its 95%+ search monopoly with browser deals, he also said it’s OK for Google to keep owning Chrome - the world’s biggest browser - so they can keep paying everyone else and free riding on their own browser. All bad here. /3