Here is the full cover story. It really does a nice job pulling together antitrust / political concerns, lobbying efforts, internal processes, employee outrage, previous reporting by @WSJ, @nytimes, others. A must-read for sure. And the art! ⬇️♥️😂⬇️ bloomberg.com/news/features/…
OK, I'm here. Google witness first. He's sharing a verbal version of G's propaganda blog post re: how much of ad supply chain gets captured by Google. Best thing I can say is regulators/lawmakers should demand an audit of G - not to mention he's not capturing the value of data /1
Now on to @HawleyMO. He's grilling on symptoms of too much power (antitrust) in Google's decisions affecting sites ability to use Google's ad platform. Also, here is a post from memory lane of a previous hearing between Google and Senator Hawley. /2
.@HawleyMO is absolutely correct about Google's market dominance and its influence over design, $, data rules over rest of "open web." Simple question is how this one company can make decisions which hurt its own financials? And if a decision helps Google..then who is harmed? /3
These two posts, and how they were handled by Twitter and Facebook, will be studied for years.
You ask “Why North Carolina?” Well they’ve started voting in NC. He’s messing with the election in the very first state. Twitter is handling it appropriately by taking away amplification tools that provide the suppression velocity and reach. Facebook still not doing enough.
I can’t emphasize enough the elegance of Twitter’s policy here. In no way is Twitter suppressing the President’s speech (which they have right to do as a private platform). They are instead eliminating use of their social media tools to help spread it. This is good policy, @jack.
Disgusted. "Woodward pressed Trump on Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's role in the 2018 killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Once again, Trump dismissed the US intelligence assessment and defends bin Salman: 'He says very strongly that he didn't do it.'"
Yes, it’s a positive move. But remember:
- microtargeted political ads are problem and FB’s entire biz model
- Twitter banned all political ads (avoiding biz model debate)
- Google banned all microtargeted political ads
FB is making change for final week only.
Only Facebook knows how political ads has been used to microtarget the public with suppressing messaging based on their vulnerabilities. Only Facebook knows how this new move will affect campaign spending and intentions...
as election experts, lawmakers, regulators studying 2016 stated...banning microtargeted political ads is a “pause” until we better understand harmful effects, solutions. The alternative is chaos. FB is taking step away from chaos here of last minute subversion using its tools.
I’m a bit forgiving here since it’s being reported from other side of world but this threat by Facebook is missing much context including a multi-year antitrust investigation by ACCC which started earlier than rest of world. China/TikTok/Trump context isn’t even that relevant.
I do applaud we don’t have to read a Ben Thompson quote missing same nuance along with mechanics of mandatory code for Google and Facebook. In Google’s round of lobbying last week, they promoted Thompson hard and even used monopoly to spread G’s propaganda on every search result.
FB and Goog’s main arguments here still come from last decade as they boast about the clicks/traffic they drive. These investigations are so much smarter and fully examine G/FB’s data practices and no longer simply give them a pass because their products pretend to be “free.”
Boom. Aug 3rd, we quietly filed in Phoenix courts to have docs unsealed in State of Arizona vs. Google. Our argument was public interest, Google had undermined consumer trust and transparency helps other proceedings.
Our friends at News Media Alliance co-signed with @DCNorg. /1
We knew the Judge had accepted our filing into the record but the great news is that the complaint has been refiled with significant redactions removed. More on this in a minute but here are the docs. Press will find unsealed sections interesting. /2 azag.gov/sites/default/…
If you're not familiar with the case, you likely remember the news that broke it wide open. It was a report from AP on how turning off location history on Android phones didn't actually stop Google from collecting location data. /3 apnews.com/828aefab64d441…
This is 100% voter suppression. Unless Twitter decides to eliminate its amplification of it, it’s a bad idea to retweet it even to criticize it. There’s a reason it has as an many retweets as comments. Your context will get lost and Twitter’s systems give it velocity and reach.
Now on a positive note, Twitter has been better at taking action and disallowed paid promotion of a post like this. Meanwhile Facebook will allow this false post to be microtargeted to undecided or unmotivated seniors leaning democrat in swing states. Powerful suppression.
Here is the same msg this morning on Facebook. Yes, Facebook places this neutral message to go get accurate info but it’s the ability to surgically microtarget false messaging to vulnerable populations which Google and Twitter have banned and Facebook leadership is failing on.
Woah. This is one of the more damning reports I’ve ever read on Facebook. Yes, that says something. It’s a deeply reported must-read on how Facebook’s political and PR interests affect public safety. A sick, sick company. wsj.com/articles/faceb…
It certainly appears there is a Joel Kaplan and Andy Stone for every market to team up and influence product decisions to keep local governments happy. I don’t even understand how this person remains employed at Facebook would a straight face.
Think about how Facebook can use its own leverage in any country to assist its preferred governance. There is clear evidence of this in this report. We’ve seen it in other nations, too, even covering up harms and working alongside politicians to help them.
For those who wrongly believe a VP @SenKamalaHarris is a gift to big tech, I bring you... Harris vs Zuckerberg
As a former prosecutor, she would detect a cover-up and false testimony a mile away. Her successor @AGBecerra is now actively investigating Facebook. (1 of 2)
For those who wrongly believe a VP @SenKamalaHarris is a gift to big tech, I bring you... Harris vs Zuckerberg.
As a former prosecutor, she would detect a cover-up and false testimony a mile away. Her successor @AGBecerra is now actively investigating Facebook. (2 of 2)
As a VP, she would be focused on other matters but it’s remarkable when @AOC asked very similar questions eighteen months after @KamalaHarris and four years after the initial reports, Zuckerberg still dodged leaderships’ role in 2016 election cover-up.
If you care about future of advertising, media, journalism and downstream effects of disinformation, ad fraud, democracy harm,
this may be the most important perspective you’ll read this year. Please read and then I’ll amplify some nuance in thread. /1 wired.com/story/can-kill…
A couple nuances, the piece points to cookies. But ultimately cookies are a technical/physical tool/proxy for tracking. In reality, there are benign uses of cookies aligning with consumer expectations by sites you actually choose to consume (eg keeping you logged in). /2
Article also sends signal this positive shift could result in revenues flowing back(wards) to contextual targeting as if it would be a reversal in market. The reality is there are a lot of ways to target beyond contextual that are privacy friendly and better for publishers. /3
ok, we're live. 1:05pm. Chair @davidcicilline reminding the committee, witnesses, and public at the depth and length of the investigation including the millions of records. Also cites @RepKenBuck comment on how bipartisan the entire investigation has been.
OK, I've read through all four CEO's written testimony. Nothing of value ahead of tomorrow. I'll leave you with a few items of snark. No surprise.
Google beat Facebook in race to say "We never sell user information to third parties."
Of course, Facebook can't really say it since they knew their data was sold to a third party and covered it up. In playing games with "sell," both try to dodge a basis for antitrust scrutiny.
Google 😂-> "which is why we've long supported the creation of comprehensive federal privacy laws." ..I bet no company has put more $ into trade groups, research & think tanks to push off *real* privacy regulation in US & EU. But I'm sure their company's statements are apple pie.
Wow. This @RMac18@CraigSilverman report deserves a close read. It’s that damn important. A lot of twists and turns but it clearly points to the antitrust issue. If Instagram was a separate company, the incentives to solve issues would be much higher. /1 buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanma…
This here is a good scoop to prove how Facebook lives by public relations externally/internally. Authenticity is a critical part of trust, no doubt Facebook’s cover-ups, denials, and deceptions are a big part of its trust erosion. Affects employees, advertisers, publishers. /2
Same thing again here. We can go back many years and have evidence now in discovery and court records to see Facebook makes decisions for public relations and political needs. Until then, they don’t self-regulate or do anything that can slow growth of data/revenue/margins. /3
🤯 437 pages. Final report. CMA continues to be a leader globally in recognizing intersection of data and competition policy and the unique role of tracking, data minining by Facebook and Google as their source of market power. Extensively covered in report (focus p149-).
Great to see @CMAgovUK move this chart to front of report. it’s one of most critical to understand (misunderstood due to Facebook/Google lobbying). Unlike other services, a majority of Duopoly’s data collection happens when users aren’t even intending to interact with them. /2
The CMA report includes some interventions on Google and Facebook’s data power. The last one is where we see most promise as it aligns with consumer privacy interests, privacy laws and forces businesses to compete on their actual trust with the user. Advertisers/G/FB hate it. /3
(1) Inspired. Here's a thread of reports for anyone who's been conned into believing Facebook cares about the public or really anything except its advertising revenues and its profits. #StopHateForProfit
- named by UN as playing determining role in genocide in Myanmar
-exec wrote awful memo - connecting people > than terrorism
- built ceo special tool to delete his messages
- sold ads to Russian operatives in Rubles during 2016 election
- knew political operative scraped user data, did nothing
- disclosed private moments of users on web
- ran out WhatsApp and Instagram founders due to leadership sketchiness
- incited ethnic violence in Sri Lanka
- enabled Russian interference in 2016 election
- shared data with Chinese Huawei, flagged by US intel
- killed off Vine app access on CEO’s orders
If you’re an advertiser or user following the #StopHateForProfit campaign to boycott Facebook properties in July and have seen Facebook’s lobbying to stop it. Three quick items then back to my Sunday with family. /1
Facebook should have zero trust. Only months ago the guy who plays point on these issues had this to say to global parliaments. Watch the exchange - they didn’t remove the hate speech - then decide whether you trust his boss Facebook’s Chief lobbyist on @ReliableSources. /2
Facebook’s big policy changes yesterday were twofold as I see them. First, they’ll no longer allow hate speech in political advertising. Are you kidding me? This means it was allowed until now and that is not a meaningful change and nowhere on par with Twitter’s moves. /3
HUGE!!! watch this in Germany. The court has now ruled Facebook has to stop collecting and using data *across* its apps (FB, Insta, WhatsApp) and broader web (millions of sites)...importantly due to its dominance/antitrust...while it awaits appeal of decision lost Feb 2019.