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

I don't normally do threads like this but I did want to provide some deeper thoughts on the below and why having a video game based on a real world war crime from the same people that received CIA funding isn't the best idea.

This will go pretty in depth FYI.


The core reason why I'm doing this thread is because:

1. It's clear the developers are marketing the game a certain way.

2. This is based on something that actually happened, a war crime no less. I don't have issues with shooter games in general ofc.

Firstly, It's important to acknowledge that the Iraq war was an illegal war, based on lies, a desire for regime change and control of resources in the region.

These were lies that people believed and still believe to this day.

It's also important to mention that the action taken by these aggressors is the reason there was a battle in Fallujah in the first place. People became resistance fighters because they were left with nothing but death and destruction all around them after the illegal invasion.

This is where one of the first red flags comes up.

The game is very much from an American point of view, as shown in the description.

When it mentions Iraqi civilians, it doesn't talk about them as victims, but mentions them as being pro US, fighting alongside them.
This is a good piece on fissures within the GOP but I think it mischaracterizes the Trump presidency as “populist” & repeats a story about how conservatives & the GOP expelled the far-right in the mid-1960s that is actually far more complicated. /1

I don’t think the sharp opposition between “hard-edge populism” & “conservative orthodoxy” holds. Many of the Trump administration’s achievements were boilerplate conservatism. Its own website trumpets things like “massive deregulation,” tax cuts, etc. /2

https://t.co/N97v85Bb79


The claim that Buckley and “key GOP politicians banded together to marginalize anti-Communist extremism and conspiracy-mongering” of the JBS has been widely repeated lately but the history is more complicated. /3


This tweet by @ThePlumLineGS citing a paper by @sam_rosenfeld and @daschloz on the "porous" boundary between conservatives, the GOP and the far-right is relevant in this context.


This is a separate point but I find it interesting that Gaetz, like Roy Moore did In his failed Senate campaign, disses McConnell. What are their actual policy differences? MM supported taking health care away from millions, a tax cut for the rich, conservative judges, etc. /5

You May Also Like