throwback time at Supreme Court today. Remember when Facebook looked away while data was harvested and sold to Cambridge Analytica (and other firms) ahead of 2016 election then covered it up? Topic finally hit SCOTUS - 10am (Kavanaugh not recusing would be outrageous). 1/3
basically facebook is trying to argue why it didn't need to disclose the "breach" despite never confirming it (2015-2018 which included elections) ahead of scandal going global in 2018. They've since somewhat successfully rewritten history on what happened thru soft press. 2/3
here is a link to oral arguments (supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments…) and a thread into more info. Justice Kavanaugh is best buds with a Facebook exec who was at center of scandal and cover-up. One hour of arguments (US Solicitor General, too). 3/3 x.com/jason_kint/sta…
4/3 also this thread as a reminder... a distraction from the other developments for your 10a-11a window into the world.
A reminder why this case matters. It involves failure to disclose the scandal. Zuckerberg testified to AOC (and Senate) about his awareness, dodged Parliaments, and paid FTC and SEC $5B+ to make go away. Board members sold stock. This case risks opening it all back up.
Justice Kavanaugh already asking questions (again, outrageous) and Justice Sotomayor (getting into the details) noting Facebook had failed to put in protections and failed to make sure the data was deleted.
Facebook now arguing again that the scandal was already in the public domain. This is a reference to a 2015 Guardian news report that wasn't widely read at the time and Facebook never confirmed had happened but said it would investigate.
If I was asking questions, I would ask Facebook if they think it's appropriate its directors (Thiel, Zuckerberg, Sandberg and Andreessen) were able to sell Facebook stock with knowledge the risk had happened while Facebook described it as a hypothetical in its SEC statement.
Justice Sotomayor clearly knows this case. the context does matter, Facebook's data was continuing to be wrongly used by an incredibly sensitive context and firm (2016 POTUS election), its execs were denying facts to press, under FTC consent decree but not disclosing.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
wow. NdCal just denied Facebook's attempt to dismiss securities suit for Cambridge Analytica cover-up. Court says plaintiffs credibly alleged Zuckerberg and Sandberg knew it "possessed over 40mil user profiles" way earlier. 4th amended complaint added/redacted cited evidence. /1
Count I, II and III now proceed, all alleged (civil) violations of 1934 SEC Act including over $5B in stock sales by Zuckerberg. This is the case Facebook already took up to SCOTUS to be denied cert. In DE, they settled similar case as director Andreessen was set to testify. /2
In this case, the executive defendants are Zuckerberg, Sandberg and CFO Wehner. What is interesting is it's added new evidence squeezed out more recently in courts including Court sanctions against Sandberg for deleting "relevant emails" over a pseudonymous gmail account. /3
Big. A major new law & tech paper takes on the economics of behavioral advertising - the kind that tracks users across multiple businesses and contexts, not just on sites they choose to visit.
It challenges industry’s favorite claim: that tracking is a “win-win” for everyone. /1
Bear with my thread. You may know I've been sharing Google and Meta monopoly abuse concerns for nearly a decade (courts now ruling). That said, I've always said ubiquitous data collection across the web (mostly NOT on the duopoly's own services!) is what fuels their dominance. /2
At the heart of the debate is this Figure 1 - and two very different ways to frame it.
Framing #1 (the industry narrative): Data aka 'signal' -> Better targeting -> More relevant ads -> More revenue -> Free content -> Everyone wins!
Simple. Elegant. But entirely misleading. /3
The 8hr video of Jack Smith’s testimony was released by Congress on New Years’ Eve in between Epstein and Venezuela. It’s an extraordinary display of Smith’s integrity and attention to justice and fairness on 1/6. Allison Gill deserves praise for curating the key clips. 1/4
Smith clearly represents all who worked towards justice and public interest, expressing his confidence and rationale he had the evidence to prove Jan 6th case to a jury. He also shows his gratitude to those retaliated against - in just doing their jobs. This stood out to me. 2/4
I must say I’m impressed by Covington & Burling law firm who has stood strong during this retaliation. This is just 1/6 - they’ve worked with Smith to be cautious to not discuss any confidential details in his classified docs report still sealed by Judge Cannon. (1.3x to fit) 3/4
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