We’ve discussed before but here is the issue in Facebook’s banning decision (whether you agree or disagree). This entire chain of execs from Bickert up to Zuckerberg report into and lobby DC interests. Same group that decided not to take action on shooting and looting post. /1

Bickert was lawyer involved in issues now central to facebook antitrust complaints. She also gave false evidence to Parliament one month before globe found out about Cambridge Analytica. And she's now giving advice on Trump account. Political winds. /2 https://t.co/h0cCbjKiwE
Kaplan's role is well-documented. WSJ, NYT and Wash Post all had significant reports how he oversized influence inside of Facebook. He also played point in the 2016 post-election scrutiny of Facebook with his deep conservative ties. Political winds. /3 https://t.co/Sk9iSTqqiT
Clegg was hired in once the heat got too much in the UK and globally. If you speak to anyone familiar with his work as a MP, you'll entirely understand why Facebook hired him. Political winds. /4 https://t.co/YEM1onB4Zb
Sandberg is a long story. But she has been intersection of everything using deny, deflect, delay tactics and her deep DC ties to avoid having to answer tough questions where FB traded toxic effects on globe to make more $ / power. Political Winds. /5 https://t.co/UPhdrmCEMD
So back to my central point which I also made in June, political winds are core to these conversations as Zuckerberg is looking to government affairs and communications' executives to guide his decision. /6 https://t.co/DTWURzVOK5
And yes you should contrast this to how Twitter reports to make these similar and very difficult decisions. I noted this in May in some important reporting from @WillOremus. It's even the pinned tweet for Twitter's head of Comms. This firewall matters. /7 https://t.co/YsezyJ44wH
These firewalls exist at news orgs between business and editorial interests for good reason. If you're running a platform with FB's influence without competition, liability for info and 98% in high-margin surveillance advertising, it REALLY matters. /8
I was at a Sept industry event where Facebook's Nick Clegg spoke to probably 100+ senior industry execs and internet minds. Almost no one thought facebook was ready except @nick_clegg. Now they're making rapid decisions influenced by political winds. /9 https://t.co/M6Wb8BOuJX
Again, bad decisions based on political winds that in hindsight are fairly obviously in need of a review. /10 https://t.co/h6TUT8T5dg
If you want a really good read on all of these issues, i highly recommend the NYT Magazine cover story from October. /11 https://t.co/EfVzvqvEIy

More from Government

You May Also Like

Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.