Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg is said to be working on a rebranding plan. According to The New York Times, the plan which has come to be known internally as “Project Amplify” was signed off by the CEO and included a boost of pro-Facebook stories (written by the Facebook Team) onto its billions of users.
An internal meeting back in January hatched the initiative to showcase “positive” stories about the social network platform on its largest digital real estate, the News Feed.
Based on the report from the Times, some executives present at the meeting were “shocked” by the proposal.
Project Amplify also made strong attempts for the Facebook platform to distance itself from any scandals (i.e. minimizing access to negative reports) relating to Zuckerberg, while simultaneously, ramping up new stories that provided a more flattering spin on the social network.
Experts say the privacy promise—ubiquitous in online services and apps—obscures the truth about how companies use personal data
You’ve likely run into this claim from tech giants before: “We do not sell your personal data.”
Companies from Facebook to Google to Twitter repeat versions of this statement in their privacy policies, public statements, and congressional testimony. And when taken very literally, the promise is true: Despite gathering masses of personal data on their users and converting that data into billions of dollars in profits, these tech giants do not directly sell their users’ information the same way data brokers directly sell data in bulk to advertisers.
But the disclaimers are also a distraction from all the other ways tech giants use personal data for profit and, in the process, put users’ privacy at risk, experts say.
Lawmakers, watchdog organizations, and privacy advocates have all pointed out ways that advertisers can still pay for access to data from companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter without directly purchasing it. (Facebook spokesperson Emil Vazquez declined to comment and Twitter spokesperson Laura Pacas referred us to Twitter’s privacy policy. Google did not respond to requests for comment.)
And focusing on the term “sell” is essentially a sleight of hand by tech giants, said Ari Ezra Waldman, a professor of law and computer science at Northeastern University.
“[Their] saying that they don’t sell data to third parties is like a yogurt company saying they’re gluten-free. Yogurt is naturally gluten-free,” Waldman said. “It’s a misdirection from all the other ways that may be more subtle but still are deep and profound invasions of privacy.”
Those other ways include everything from data collected from real-time bidding streams (more on that later), to targeted ads directing traffic to websites that collect data, to companies using the data internally.
How Is My Data at Risk if It’s Not Being Sold?
Even though companies like Facebook and Google aren’t directly selling your data, they are using it for targeted advertising, which creates plenty of opportunities for advertisers to pay and get your personal information in return.
The simplest way is through an ad that links to a website with its own trackers embedded, which can gather information on visitors including their IP address and their device IDs.
Advertising companies are quick to point out that they sell ads, not data, but don’t disclose that clicking on these ads often results in a website collecting personal data. In other words, you can easily give away your information to companies that have paid to get an ad in front of you.
If the ad is targeted toward a certain demographic, then advertisers would also be able to infer personal information about visitors who came from that ad, Bennett Cyphers, a staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said.
For example, if there’s an ad targeted at expectant mothers on Facebook, the advertiser can infer that everyone who came from that link is someone Facebook believes is expecting a child. Once a person clicks on that link, the website could collect device IDs and an IP address, which can be used to identify a person. Personal information like “expecting parent” could become associated with that IP address.
“You can say, ‘Hey, Google, I want a list of people ages 18–35 who watched the Super Bowl last year.’ They won’t give you that list, but they will let you serve ads to all those people,” Cyphers said. “Some of those people will click on those ads, and you can pretty easily figure out who those people are. You can buy data, in a sense, that way.”
Then there’s the complicated but much more common way that advertisers can pay for data without it being considered a sale, through a process known as “real-time bidding.”
Often, when an ad appears on your screen, it wasn’t already there waiting for you to show up. Digital auctions are happening in milliseconds before the ads load, where websites are selling screen real estate to the highest bidder in an automated process.
Visiting a page kicks off a bidding process where hundreds of advertisers are simultaneously sent data like an IP address, a device ID, the visitor’s interests, demographics, and location. The advertisers use this data to determine how much they’d like to pay to show an ad to that visitor, but even if they don’t make the winning bid, they have already captured what may be a lot of personal information.
With Google ads, for instance, the Google Ad Exchange sends data associated with your Google account during this ad auction process, which can include information like your age, location, and interests.
The advertisers aren’t paying for that data, per se; they’re paying for the right to show an advertisement on a page you visited. But they still get the data as part of the bidding process, and some advertisers compile that information and sell it, privacy advocates said.
In May, a group of Google users filed a federal class action lawsuit against Google in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging the company is violating its claims to not sell personal information by operating its real-time bidding service.
The lawsuit argues that even though Google wasn’t directly handing over your personal data in exchange for money, its advertising services allowed hundreds of third parties to essentially pay and get access to information on millions of people. The case is ongoing.
“We never sell people’s personal information and we have strict policies specifically prohibiting personalized ads based on sensitive categories,” Google spokesperson José Castañeda told the San Francisco Chronicle in May.
Real-time bidding has also drawn scrutiny from lawmakers and watchdog organizations for its privacy implications.
In January, Simon McDougall, deputy commissioner of the United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office, announced in a statement that the agency was continuing its investigation of real-time bidding (RTB), which if not properly disclosed, may violate the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation.
“The complex system of RTB can use people’s sensitive personal data to serve adverts and requires people’s explicit consent, which is not happening right now,” McDougall said. “Sharing people’s data with potentially hundreds of companies, without properly assessing and addressing the risk of these counterparties, also raises questions around the security and retention of this data.”
And in April, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators sent a letter to ad tech companies involved in real-time bidding, including Google. Their main concern: foreign companies and governments potentially capturing massive amounts of personal data about Americans.
“Few Americans realize that some auction participants are siphoning off and storing ‘bidstream’ data to compile exhaustive dossiers about them,” the letter said. “In turn, these dossiers are being openly sold to anyone with a credit card, including to hedge funds, political campaigns, and even to governments.”
On May 4, Google responded to the letter, telling lawmakers that it doesn’t share personally identifiable information in bid requests and doesn’t share demographic information during the process.
“We never sell people’s personal information and all ad buyers using our systems are subject to stringent policies and standards, including restrictions on the use and retention of information they receive,” Mark Isakowitz, Google’s vice president of government affairs and public policy, said in the letter.
What Does It Mean to “Sell” Data?
Advocates have been trying to expand the definition of “sell” beyond a straightforward transaction.
The California Consumer Privacy Act, which went into effect in January 2020, attempted to cast a wide net when defining “sale,” beyond just exchanging data for money. The law considers it a sale if personal information is sold, rented, released, shared, transferred, or communicated (either orally or in writing) from one business to another for “monetary or other valuable consideration.”
And companies that sell such data are required to disclose that they’re doing so and allow consumers to opt out.
“We wrote the law trying to reflect how the data economy actually works, where most of the time, unless you’re a data broker, you’re not actually selling a person’s personal information,” said Mary Stone Ross, chief privacy officer at OSOM Products and a co-author of the law. “But you essentially are. If you are a social media company and you’re providing advertising and people pay you a lot of money, you are selling access to them.”
But that doesn’t mean it’s always obvious what sorts of personal data a company collects and sells.
In T-Mobile’s privacy policy, for instance, the company says it sells compiled data in bulk, which it calls “audience segments.” The policy states that audience segment data for sale doesn’t contain identifiers like your name and address but does include your mobile advertising ID.
Nevertheless, T-Mobile’s privacy policy says the company does “not sell information that directly identifies customers.”
T-Mobile spokesperson Taylor Prewitt didn’t provide an answer to why the company doesn’t consider advertising IDs to be personal information but said customers have the right to opt out of that data being sold.
So What Should I Be Looking for in a Privacy Policy?
The next time you look at a privacy policy, which few people ever really do, don’t just focus on whether or not the company says it sells your data. That’s not necessarily the best way to assess how your information is traveling and being used.
And even if a privacy policy says that it doesn’t share private information beyond company walls, the data collected can still be used for purposes you might feel uncomfortable with, like training internal algorithms and machine learning models. (See Facebook’s use of one billion pictures from Instagram, which it owns, to improve its image recognition capability.)
Consumers should look for deletion and retention policies instead, said Lindsey Barrett, a privacy expert and until recently a fellow at Georgetown Law. These are policies that spell out how long companies keep data, and how to get it removed.
She noted that these statements hold a lot more weight than companies promising not to sell your data.
“People don’t have any meaningful transparency into what companies are doing with their data, and too often, there are too few limits on what they can do with it,” Barrett said. “The whole ‘We don’t sell your data’ doesn’t say anything about what the company is doing behind closed doors.”
Chair of the Federal Trade Commission Lina Khan posted on her Twitter the official press release of its position against Facebook.
Pulling no punches the language of the filing leaves no doubt as to the direction of the FTC going forward in this case. Illegal, Bribery, “Buy-or-Bury Scheme” these are characterizations that go to the heart of anticompetitive and monopolistic behavior of the giant. FTC Bureau of Competition Acting Director, Holly Vedova, said ““This conduct is no less anticompetitive than if Facebook had bribed emerging app competitors not to compete. The antitrust laws were enacted to prevent precisely this type of illegal activity by monopolists.”
While The Federal Trade Commission’s mandate has traditionally been “to promote competition and protect and educate consumers” the attempt by big tech to appear “helpful” to consumers with hidden costs and deflated pricing is finally at issue with Kahn in the chair. Khan’s famous 2017 article; “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox“ helped to re-define a new direction for antitrust law for the digital age, which appears to be in the early stages of fulfillment at the agency under her leadership.
FTC Alleges Facebook Resorted to Illegal Buy-or-Bury Scheme to Crush Competition After String of Failed Attempts to Innovatehttps://t.co/tR9yokuyFo
As described in the amended case, upon Facebook starting out as an open space for third party developers, the company quickly reversed (pulling a bait-and-switch) by requiring developers to terms that would have prevented successful applications from emerging as competitive threats to the company.
A Story that’s Getting Old, Lies and Deception are Flooding All Outlets on Precipice of 2020 Election Year
Over the past few months, false videos on YouTube posing as established American news outlets have garnered millions of views. Selling themselves as CNN or Fox News, these fake accounts present inflammatory and fabricated content to their viewers, effectively deceiving the American public by spreading misinformation.
The Google-owned YouTube says they have taken down as many of these videos as it can, but companies such as CNN insist that the website needs to do more to proactively inhibit such activity. After all, the source of the problem is rooted deep within the very fiber that keeps YouTube (and the current monopolized Internet as a whole) running.
What is really going on in the YouTube case is an exploitation of two fundamental aspects of the Internet. Namely, these fake accounts are taking advantage of the web’s free ranging platform, and they are manipulating the data-based algorithms that keep the Internet efficiently feeding billions in ad revenue to the platforms like, google search, YouTube, Facebook and Amazon.
The web’s “free” policy refers to the fact that anyone can post anything on the Internet, although “free” in this case is a deceiving concept. Long before the Internet was a global phenomenon, the system was built upon a somewhat libertarian foundation where all users had equal access and unrestricted contribution power to information. The potential fault in this model, however, is that there is little accountability or security. As we are seeing today, with so much unchecked info, lying becomes easy and the line between true and false greys.
Algorithms are the Gatekeepers, Automation for Advertising Dollars
As for the algorithms, websites like YouTube, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and so on, depend on formulas that learn more about you the more you use them. A term that is gradually beginning to become more important but not yet fully understood, an algorithm is a set of instructions, managed by Artificial Intelligence.
The key point is that the companies mentioned above maintain total secrecy as to the settings of the algorithm, however, by viewing the public results it is clear that in all cases the algorithm is programmed to benefit advertisers, and thereby increase profits for the companies.
As per wikipedia:
“In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm is a finite sequence of well-defined, computer-implementable instructions, typically to solve a class of problems or to perform a computation. Algorithms are unambiguous specifications for performing calculation, data processing, automated reasoning, and other tasks.”
This is how YouTube recommends videos for you, Facebook shows you suggested posts, Amazon advertises things that fit your taste, and Google can anticipate your searches before you even type anything in. It is based mostly off of your previous use—your activity provides data that these tech companies manipulate, own and sell (which you unwittingly agreed to by clicking the ubiquitous “terms of service” agreement).
However, as the access to Internet platforms, and therefore the ability to interact with others, has become a virtual monopoly controlled by the platforms, the ethics surrounding data rights and algorithms have become less clear.
Most Internet users have allowed access to their personal information in some way or another. Through “free” email accounts, social media, messages, pictures, purchases, and so on, your entire identity is encrypted somewhere in the cybernetic ether, and you have little control over it.
The consequences of this go beyond just getting offered offensive videos or unsolicited ads. The companies that made the bogus CNN accounts, for example, cleverly played YouTube’s algorithms so you would be redirected there after watching legitimate news stories. Because the majority of people consume news through their computers, fake news and real news have become increasingly difficult to distinguish.
More and More Political Manipulators are Gaming the Algos
Moreover, these misleading accounts are not always coming from Internet trolls. Some of them are run by malicious enterprises or foreign governments trying to influence geopolitical processes. Such was the case behind the now well known, infamous case of Cambridge Analytica’s interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.
Cambridge Analytica—a British political consulting firm—marketed for the Trump campaign using people’s Facebook data. At the height of the campaign, the company allegedly consulted with Russian officials to assist in Trump’s eventual election.
Due to the algorithmic control of websites like Facebook, once Cambridge Analytica had information on a single user, it was able to acquire information on every person that that single user ever interacted with online. Via just a handful of connections, the company was able to quickly collect data on nearly the entire nation. Thus, even if you avoided all of Cambridge Analytica’s tricks, you could still be targeted through just a few degrees of separation.
There is really no way of knowing who Facebook is sharing your data with or how they are using it. In fact, you don’t even know what your own data is, as most websites bar their users from accessing the very information that they provide. The only way to find out how you are being targeted is by consuming the suggested version of yourself that these tech companies feed back to you.
The situation is certainly eerie on a personal level, but it also transcends the individual to impact phenomena on a far greater scale. With the Trump administration as evidence, Cambridge Analytica’s approach obviously worked in some capacity. Likewise, businesses and organizations can manipulate data to promote their version of the world. Through the unrestricted world of the Internet, powerful users can alter history, conflate truths, and shape the American psyche into thinking whatever they deem real.
Certain sectors of the government have been working to try and fix this problem. Mark Zuckerberg has gone before Congress to answer for Facebook’s place in the Cambridge Analytica case. Likewise, the California Consumer Privacy Act will take effect on January 1st, giving people greater personal data rights in the Golden State.
Don’t expect the companies mentioned above, having a combined market value of more than $3 trillion, to cooperate or rein in this problem voluntarily. This algorithmic dictatorship benefits criminals like those that were behind the Trump election meddling, but most of all the system benefits the platforms themselves, at a level that is mind-bogglingly obscene. This system will change only when they are broken up or gone.
Data is the most profitable resource on the planet (recently topping oil), and it is because of our data inputs that Google and Facebook, among others, remain “free” websites. The real price for online “services” like search and social platforms is very high indeed and users are getting scammed out of more than they may realize.
Ultimately, like in politics and life itself, it is the masses, the users themselves in this case, that can decide if they want an algorithmic dictatorship, or if it is time to sweep away the current dysfunctional system and replace it with one where the price is not so steep.
Consensus Building Rapidly Against the Business Models of Internet Giants
Earlier this week, Amnesty International, a non-governmental organization from the UK, called Google and Facebook’s practices of omnipresent surveillance on people around the world an “assault on privacy.” The organization, which focuses on human rights, recently released a report outlining how these two major tech companies hold too much power and should change their business models to stop infringing on users’ personal information.
Amnesty International’s accusations may seem extreme, but that does not mean that they are inaccurate. While Google and Facebook might appear to be free websites, the reality is that you pay for their services with your data. Whenever you search for something, you feed the sites information—information that they can sell, manipulate, market, or use for a countless number of other things, some of them perhaps unethical.
The upside is that data is cheap, and therefore these websites are not about to start charging you. The downside, however, is that there are really no limits to how tech juggernauts like Google or Facebook (or Apple, or Amazon, or Microsoft for that matter) use the data you provide them. No concrete laws in the United States monitor these companies’ use of data, and given that the Internet was built as a place of free-flowing information, there are no internal boundaries that stop these websites from taking full, unrestricted advantage of your information.
This is not the first time that Facebook and Google have been called out for issues regarding privacy and cyber-ethics. Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has found himself before Congress on more than one occasion recently. Ever since it became known that Cambridge Analytica used web data to falsely advertise on Facebook during the 2016 elections, the social network’s surveillance tactics have been in question.
Benign Monarchs? Not Likely.
As for Google, the website practically has a monopoly on web-searches across the world. The search engine accounts for 90% of the Internet searches on Earth, and it is not always transparent about what it does with the resulting data. With such huge numbers, though, Google can afford to distribute your extensive information to just about anyone—even government organizations or institutions with malintent.
The two companies usually respond to these kinds of accusations with vague optimism about current and future cyber-safety. Google claims to have changed its model within the last year, making the site more user-friendly and giving its patrons more control. Meanwhile, Facebook has largely stood its ground when it comes to online freedom. Zuckerberg and other Facebook officials have suggested that they will heighten security, but they simultaneously stand by that censorship on any scale is constrictive and antithetical to the website’s intent.
Facebook also owns Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp, and several other websites/apps that are used across borders, making the issue a conglomerate and worldly one. Although they are both American companies by origin, both Facebook and Google are international entities. Thus, creating laws around their practices is a complicated and culturally sensitive process.
At the same time, though, these enterprises have been going unchecked and unchallenged for well over a decade now. When they started, the digital world was much smaller and very different than it is now. Technology has changed, and so has the world— now the rules that govern it must follow suit.
Facebook Attempts to Rebrand itself with New, Colorful All-Caps Logo for all Owned and Acquired Apps
In the fifteen years that Facebook has graced our computer screens, the website has undergone many aesthetic and technical changes, yet its lower-case, white printed name set against a blue background has stood the test of time as the company’s unmistakable corporate logo. However, even the most familiar things must evolve at some point. Despite its long run, Facebook’s corporate logo is finally changing and the change is far from subtle.
Facebook’s updated logo no longer reads “facebook” but instead shouts “FACEBOOK” in all-caps, slightly bolded Helevetica font. According to Mark Zuckerberg, the new logo is meant to offer a sense of security and optimism, with its soft edges and comfortable spacing reminding users that the website was created to bring people together.
Perhaps even more dramatically than the all-caps decision, though, Facebook’s new logo is also losing its signature blue and white color combo. The company’s name will now be written in transitional colors, changing hue depending on the application it is seen on.
The logo will be seen on multiple applications, as Facebook also announced that it will start branding itself more straightforwardly on the company’s other apps and sites. One may not know that Facebook owns Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp, Oculus, Workplace, Portal, and Calibra. The company plans on making this Facebook-family of services more blatantly related, printing “from Facebook” on each homepage using the new logo.
New Facebook Marketing Stunt Comes Amidst Political Strife and Corporate Pitfalls
This re-branding marketing stunt could not have come at a more astute time for Facebook. The company has been in hot water for well over a year at this point, and the pot is beginning to boil over.
During the 2016 election, the Cambridge Analytica British Consulting Firm used Facebook to steal data and falsely advertise for the Trump campaign. Since then, the company has been accused of profiting off of fake-news and not doing enough to police their content.
New multi-colored version of the Logo released as an animated GIF
Just a couple weeks ago, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez grilled Mark Zuckerberg before Congress, exposing the young CEO’s ignorance as well as his lack of initiative to address Facebook security issues and protect its users.
Similarly, Senator Elizabeth Warren has scathingly called out Facebook during her Democratic presidential campaign. Part of her anti-corporation platform includes breaking up the big tech conglomerates—that means Apple, Google, Amazon, and yes, Facebook. Essentially, Warren gave a voice to the widely accepted belief that Facebook currently holds too much control and has become an unchecked power.
No—Facebook is not on great terms with its users nowadays. More and more people are deleting their accounts on the site that once ruled social media, following the #deletefacebook trend growing across the globe. Sadly, there is not a whole lot Facebook can do about the underlying causes, though. As dumbfounded as Zuckerberg may have seemed before congress, these cyber-security questions are far from simple.
For now, Facebook is doing what it can for itself. It is changing its image, hoping that the updated logo and united approach to the multiple apps will revamp interest in the site and maybe just cover up some of the hostility it currently faces. A new logo doesn’t actually solve anything. Facebook will still remain the same old site it always has been. So how do we take the new logo? As a sign of corporate reformation on Facebook’s behalf? Or as a symbolic front to distract user’s from the company’s inaction? Or is it just a logo? A marketing ploy like any other meant to make the website more modern and appealing to digital passerbys.
Zuckerberg stumbled and evaded while attempting to respond to AOC on Facebook Behaviors and Policies, especially its Political “Lie Exemption” Policy
While Mark Zuckerberg’s controversial Libra cryptocurrency project is what initially got him into the House for another hearing on October 23rd, the House Financial Services Committee Members took this as an opportunity to express their concerns about Facebook’s paramount involvement in a variety of controversial issues.
Each committee member was given five minutes to address their Facebook policy concerns with Zuckerberg, and they did not waste their time, especially Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as she interrogates him regarding Facebook’s influential role in endangering the nation’s democracy and general safety.
Here’s a brief rundown of the topics she addresses that continue to put Zuckerberg and his insidiously dangerous Facebook ‘megaphone‘ under hot water to this very day:
Libra Cryptocurrency: Another Scam to hide behind an Outsourced Entity in order to Evade Accountability? This time, he’s going for the Poor and “Unbanked”
On June 14, 2019, Zuckerberg released his plans to launch a cryptocurrency project called Libra on Facebook, and since then, it’s been facing a lot of criticism from the government and anti-trust regulators.
The Libra cryptocurrency is a part of Facebook’s future mobile payment system, proposed at Facebook’s annual developer conference in April. The crypto currency project aims to allow Facebook’s 2.4 billion worldwide users to exchange payments with minimal fees and without the need for a third-party software.
“It’s not that Facebook is evil, which it may or may not be. Facebook hasn’t shown an ability to think through unintended consequences or prevent bad actors from weaponizing its platform.”
ScotT Galloway, Marketing Professor at NYU, Author of “The Four”, well-known for his unsparing critiques of influential tech companies
But, while the idea appears to have good intentions behind it, much like many of Zuckerberg’s other ideas, the problems and potential dangers are in the details.
So, the real issue is in how the Libra cryptocurrency project can potentially influence Facebook’s extremely wide global user base in a number of negative ways.
“If 50 percent of Facebook users all of a sudden use this coin, then you potentially have a new reserve currency globally. If you would weaponize a global currency and start monkeying with it, you could have what capitalists fear more than war: a recession–or some sort of a global economic meltdown.”
SCOTT GALLOWAY
California Representative Congressman Brad Sherman interrogated Zuckerberg extensively on this topic during the Financial Services Committee Hearing, which illustrated these repercussions specifically.
Brad Shermon eloquently points out a pattern that Zuckerberg struggles to answer. He appears to be attempting to hide behind platitudes of egalitarian ideals in order to avoid accountability for content controlled by his platform.
“…but for the richest man in the world to come here and hide behind the poorest people in the world and say that’s who you are trying to help, you are trying to help those to whom the dollar is not a good currency—drug dealers, terrorists and tax evaders..”
Rep. Brad Sherman to Zuckerberg at the House FInancial Services COMmittee Hearing
Cambridge Analytica: AOC cites Facebook’s Biggest Scandal that brought ‘Catastrophic Impact’ to American Democracy in the 2016 Election
But the House Financial Services Committee wasn’t having it, and AOC Exposes Facebook’s Flaws for All to See:
"So, you won't take down lies or you will take down lies? I think that's just a pretty simple yes or no."
Complete exchange between @RepAOC@AOC and Mark Zuckerberg at today's House Financial Services Cmte hearing.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez begins her five-minute interrogation by citing Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica Data Scandal from 2018. Her reasoning is that, before even considering the Libra cryptocurrency issue, it’s important to analyze how Facebook handled Cambridge Analytica because the Libra cryptocurrency project has potential for far worse.
Essentially, AOC gave Zuckerberg a chance to make a case for himself. He had an opportunity to show that he and Facebook are equipped to adequately deal with the repercussions of establishing Libra, and to answer this fundamental question: has Facebook learned from its past mistakes regarding the Cambridge Analytica Data Scandal so that they could take the necessary actions to ensure that data scandals won’t happen again?
Next she asks, what year and month did Zuckerberg first become aware of Cambridge Analytica? He doesn’t remember, but it was probably around March 2018, when the scandal became public.
When did Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg become aware of Cambridge Analytica? Again, Zuckerberg says he doesn’t know, so AOC asks a follow-up question. Did anyone on his leadership team know about Cambridge Analytica prior to when the initial report came from The Guardian on December 11, 2015? Now, for this one, Zuckerberg believes that this was the case and that members of his leadership team were tracking it internally. Additionally, he takes this opportunity and appears to try to avoid responsibility by saying that he was aware of Cambridge Analytica as an entity, but he also wasn’t aware of how they were using Facebook specifically.
When was the issue discussed with his board member Peter Teal? Once again, Zuckerberg proclaims his ignorance, to which AOC iterates that his answers are unacceptable. It is unacceptable that he did not properly discuss the “largest data scandal” with respect to his company that had “catastrophic impacts on the 2016 election.”
While Zuckerberg flaggingly scrambles to defend himself by explaining that they did discuss the issue when it happened, he fails to answer whether Facebook is capable of being accountable for their actions by addressing their mistakes with handling data privacy so that they wouldn’t be repeated. If Facebook truly cared about handling data privacy, then they would have taken extensive measures to address the issue. Maybe then, Zuckerberg would’ve actually remembered enough about the issue to answer AOC’s questions.
Facebook Policy allows Politicians to Pay to Spread Misinformation
Zuckerberg’s seemingly flagrant irresponsibility with regards to handling Facebook leads AOC to confront him on the current hot topic: “Facebook’s official policy to allow politicians to pay to spread disinformation in 2020 elections and in the future.” She demands to know how far this policy could be pushed before Facebook decides to fact-check and take down these posts, because, again, they have the potential to influence the next election directly.
Could politicians enact voter suppression by advertising wrong election date to zip codes with primarily black communities? Zuckerberg vaguely explains that content will be taken down if it were to cause an obvious immediate harm. Okay, but what if it’s not obvious? Will his answer suffice then? The answer is likely no, because infinite ways can be found to dodge this issue, then, once again, and we’re back to square one.
Further she presses him, Could she (AOC) run ads targeting Republicans in primaries saying that they voted for the Green New Deal? Zuckerberg is unsure, but answers that she probably could. Elizabeth Warren recently did something similar in her “Zuckerberg Supports Trump” ad.
Does Zuckerberg see the potential problem here with a complete lack of fact-checking on political advertisements? To that, he appeals to common morals: lying is bad. His logic is that he doesn’t want to prevent constituents from seeing that politicians had lied, which clarifies that Zuckerberg won’t take these ads down.
The problem with this logic is that the general public is assumed to have the ability to differentiate between lies and the truth. But, as this current presidency has proven, many, if not most, people clearly do not.
Thoughts on Zuckerberg’s On-Going Dinner Parties with Far-Right Figures? Debatable, or so he tries to imply.
Further, Zuckerberg’s on-going dinner parties in which he cultivates relationships with known politically far-right figures is also suspicious. After all, there have been numerous times that alt-right entities abused social media platforms in the service of discrimination and hate crimes.
Did Zuckerberg discuss the alleged social media bias against conservatives, and does he believe that this bias exists? Zuckerberg indicated that he couldn’t remember the question or answer it, appearing to want to avoid confirming or denying these associations under oath, so AOC moved on.
Next she asked Zuckerberg to explain why he named the Daily Caller, a publication well-documented to have ties to white supremacists, an official fact-checker for Facebook? Once again, Zuckerberg tries to escape responsibility by saying that they don’t actually appoint independent fact-checkers and that they come from an independent organization called the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) that has rigorous standards for who they allow to serve as a fact-checking entity.
White-supremacist-tied publications meet a rigorous standard for fact-checking? Zuckerberg had no answer, which is again, an indicator that she had pushed him into areas he would prefer to avoid. After research, it turns out that he lied, or at minimum mis-led in his answer on multiple points, First, the (IFCN) have generally “certified” a total of 62 organizations globally, but it is, indeed, Facebook and presumably Zuckerberg personally, that chose the 6 in particular that are Facebook partners.
There’s a Pattern Here: Facebook and other Social Media Platforms Need to be held Accountable
Clearly, Zuckerberg still thinks that he could get by with excuses in an effort to absolve himself from the endless blame that Facebook receives from The Media for meddling with numerous socially-influential affairs.
It’s hard not to notice that while Mr. Zuckerberg has been given many chances to make amends for Facebook’s failures, the opportunity has been for naught, apparently, because his private for-profit company is only interested in maintaining user engagement, which he now claims is in the name of free speech and equality. However, clearly, these cannot actually be achieved without specifically executing processes that address the discriminatory practices.
