This hot mic moment after Facebook testified this morning will get the most attention but I’ll paste a few other clips in this thread. /1
Canada continues to come prepared to ask fair and challenging questions. For instance, this reference to how FB’s Zuckerberg aggressively pushed back on UK Parliament in 2018. ps are we to believe a FB lobbyist really learned the term, “astroturfing” during Google hearing? /2
And also press on how whistleblower docs showed Facebook plotted to cause chaos in Australia by broadly blocking news and other critical information after the Senate vote but prior to becoming law. /3
Canada even asked about the “Jedi Blue” deal with Google which despite (or maybe because of) being in private and Justice Department lawsuits, Facebook apparently wants to deflect to Google. /4
By the way, when Facebook says they don’t “collect content from news websites,” please ask them about the pixels they’ve disclosed in discovery across over 8 million websites harvesting data to train their ad targeting which is 97% of their revenues. /5
Just in case anyone on Canadian Parliament thinks they actually answered one of your questions here, she quoted their revenues for all of North America which are already publicly available every quarter. /6
And I’ll end with an answer given to Facebook and Google’s most dutiful shield on this committee. FB would like us to know their great concern with the #c18 legislation is that it could tie the fate of the news sector to Facebook and Google due to their revenue payments. 🤦🏻♂️/7
Regarding the first tweet, the audio feed had a little bit more context as the Chair described Facebook witness’s remarks as “quite inappropriate.” /8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
woah. a deeply concerning internal Google doc just unsealed in US DOJ vs Google (adtech antitrust trial seven weeks from now).
Smells like bid rigging.
Translation (by me):
Red = bad for Google
Green = good for G
'Levels playing field' = helps G
'fairer competition' = helps G /1
at the very least, demonstrates the conflict of interest with having significant market power on both sides. here is a Google doc roadmapping these changes to their auctions from the buy-side and the sell-side ahead of analyzing the impact and mitigating outcry. /2
for example, here is what looks to be Google analyzing what would happen to their biz when they removed "Last Look" which gave Google a significant advantage after an ad auction had been run. Don't miss the Green at bottom. /3
more news yesterday in flurry of activity in lawsuit vs Facebook for (over)paying FTC $5B to protect Zuckerberg. Big names involved. Board records inspection shows who's who in 'approval' - everyone now gone except Zuckerberg, Andresseen and Alford. Gets interesting quickly... /1
Yes, Andreessen joined Thiel in politics with full-throated endorsement of Trump with close allies. Alford was CFO of Chan Zuckerberg right before approval. WSJ reported Chenault and Zients (important: now Biden's chief of staff) stepped down over disagreements with Mark Z. /2
So what's happening. Well, first in April 2024 all of these prior and current board members were served in the lawsuit. Again, this is based on a prior records inspection of non-privileged board documents and the Court at that point deciding to allow the case to move forward. /3
Friday night KA-boom. In adtech antitrust lawsuit against Google, court has ordered the state AGs may depose Google co-founder Sergey Brin and CEO Sundar Pichai. Huge. /1
So the two cited reasons Pichai will be deposed (although not all of them) are incredibly sensitive. 1), “Jedi Blue,” the alleged collusion with Facebook that everyone wrongly wrote off back earlier in this lawsuit. Google CEO Pichai met directly with Facebook CEO Zuckerberg. /2
A reminder the Google and Facebook deal (aka the “NBA” or “Jedi Blue”) is also in a private antitrust suit against Facebook. The deal was signed by the lieutenants of the CEOs (Sheryl Sandberg for Facebook). /3
US v Google flooded docket (103 filings!) over weekend as Court said Friday...hey now, let's skip summary judgment, this baby is going to trial. Much is companies trying to keep their secrets sealed but we get a sense for the witnesses. And a small taste of evidence to come. /1
On the companies filing to keep their secrets sealed which they mostly provided under subpoena, it's a mix of adtech, agencies, platforms, you name it. /2
We also learn some glossary items which likely come up:
'RASTA' - Google's tool to evaluate new 'launches' (aka changes) in ad serving system, runs on live traffic
'Ariane' - identifies and summarized launches
'Launch' - creative name (lol), it replaced Ariane in 2020/2021 /3
SCOTUS just posted order list. It granted cert to Facebook on its Cambridge Analytica matter. Only first question but that’s a huge one. Basically should Facebook have disclosed to shareholders what it started to cover up in 2015 rather than presenting risk as hypothetical? /1
Here is the actual first question as written. One immediate item, it’s outrageous if Justice Kavanaugh didn’t/doesn’t recuse seeing his reported best friend, Joel Kaplan, was directly involved in the matter and its cover up. He threw his SCOTUS confirmation party IIRC. /2
Here is a link into background. I strongly urge press not to overlook this or assume you know fact history. Over the years much has played out in coverup and much of the reporting has been bent towards Facebook’s spin. I am more than happy to point you to the court records. /3
“X has lost dozens of major advertisers under Musk’s ownership, with 74 out of the top 100 U.S. advertisers from that month no longer spending on the platform as of May.” 1/4
Smart NBC report focusing on amplification, velocity and reach, “X isn’t living up to its own policies when it allows violent extremists to use the platform’s amplification features.” 2/4
“It’s not clear to what extent people at X were aware that the company was monetizing the extremist hashtags prior to NBC News’ reporting.” 3/4