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
wow, another order for Mark Zuckerberg to sit for another court deposition. This time in a case involving privacy violations with ingesting web-wide health data. Remember they paid billions in cases to try to avoid this. Data and privacy issues are especially sensitive. /1
Zuckerberg depositions are interesting as they often go on for hours with highly informed attorneys driving for answers. And those answers may be put up against the often questioned veracity of his answers to Congress. Yes, as a CEO, he has testified to Congress A LOT. /2
I think his first real depo was SEC on very sensitive data scandal leading to $5B+ settlements with FTC+SEC. That scandal is still playing out in courts (did he overpay to protect himself?) It took 3yrs to get unsealed after I caught it in a footnote. /3
The Verge comes in with a massive scoop on the backstory reporting it was Musk - and Sacks - behind the scenes trying to blow up IP to train AI on behalf of his allies. This wouldn't be a surprise to anyone. /1
they have reports and details on the carnage and firing of the leadership and on the possible incorrect assumption that the new people in charge were running their playbook. /2
It may be rare that @mrddmia is in agreement with Dems but in the world of accountability for big tech abuse whether over data, monetization, IP, censorship, privacy, you name it, these aren't partisan issues. appreciate the shared voice from advocates all around. /3
omg. I can't believe what I am seeing in the FTC v Meta exhibits that just posted. This is the start of a long Oct 2018 thread where redacted executive tells another c-level executive, Adam Mosseri, "some estimates fake engagement [on Instagram] could be in range of 40%." /1
and Mosseri does nothing to dispute the data point either. he actually agrees they are a threat saying, "they present a bigger thread [sic] to the business than to the user experience." The timing of this remarkable if you know the context of what was going on there. /2
Earlier in that year, Facebook was using same Mosseri to pitch and spin (this entire pitch document is amazing behind the scenes) the infamous Wired cover story, WSJ, CNN press on work to improve meaningful social interactions, and much much more. /3 ftcvmeta.app.box.com/s/b8m39toze8uc…
woah, I've now read Google and DOJ's proposed remedies for Google's 3rd antitrust defeat (adtech). I threaded Friday's hearing but this full doc is nothing short of beautiful. Best stuff may be missed so hear me out. This is a huge deal - 10yrs, "lifeblood of the Internet." /1
A reminder on the four objectives of antitrust remedies. In court on Friday and in Google's proposal, Google just seems to ignore the third and fourth as if they don't matter. That's a major problem for them. Judge Brinkema will be all over it. She gets this case wonderfully. /2
For instance, on Friday she labeled Google's ad demand, AdWords, the "golden goose." Now here is how DOJ describes it: "unique advertising demand." Notably, they don't flag that the demand also connects back to Google's other illegal monopoly loss for "search text ads." /3
A few more nuggets of delight for you. First, Tim Apple has had his halo bent. He's arguably had the best reputation of the big tech CEOs until today. He ordered the code red. /1
Alex Roman had a super bad day. If anyone directed him on this testimony cited by the Court, heads will roll. either way, Apple Inc also has big problems. /2
Day 2. A few comments after 2nd day of testimony from Mark Zuckerberg. FTC began with impeachment as Zuckerberg had said yesterday friends & family were only about 25% of Stories shared when instead it appears more in 63-73% range. I would hammer him on these, it's a pattern. /1
Remember, we've learned from MZ's deposition to SEC and many trips to Congress, he may say too much and seems to talk his way through problems. Speaking of... USvGoogle on the weight of contemporaneous statements is already a massive shadow over MZ. /2
I think MZ has a tell. He often says, "Well that is an interesting question" when asked about his prior contemporaneous statements on fairly obvious questions such as "Is it true that Facebook users like less ads in their feeds?" /3