Sheryl Sandberg is asked about selling/sharing data. She says "we sell ads", implying they don't sell data. That's true, but no defense. Facebook sells users' attention to advertisers by profiling them based on extensive surveillance. That's the root problem. #techhearings
Sandberg/Facebook is asked what they don't allow. She says "hate speech/bullying, etc."—as per TOS. Fine, but the real action is the process that FB (and the industry) uses to police content. That's where it all goes down, as shaped by business model—how the cost center operates.
Marco Rubio asked a very good question. It's one thing for Sandberg/Dorsey to come wrapped in "our values" to the US Congressional hearings. But they operate worldwide—billions of people use these sites as public/social sphere. This is a crucial, thorny issue. #techhearings
Another great question from Senator Heinrich. "Authentic" as a word only does so much work—mostly works when paired with "foreign" and "coordinated". Facebook leans on that phrase, but it really only does fairly little work considering what the core problem is.
Harris/Sandberg exchange on how "white men" got to be a "protected category" on Facebook but not "black children" is telling in how the public conversation misses core problems. Sandberg said it was a mistake, ok but it was a consequence of business model/scale, not some hatred.
Dorsey's own opening statement talked about incentives, and how the business models and incentives on these platforms interact with human/social dynamics. Kinda surprising that there aren't more questions on that: that's the crucial issue.
Every journalist tweeting or periscoping that “clown,” and @Twitter for making his stunt a moment and showing me—what will it take for you to stop being played? You’re big part of the problem. If harassing Sandy Hook families won’t do it, what will it take to understand the game?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
