Facebook's privacy meltdown after Cambridge Analytica is far from over; The Guardian, March 18, 2019

Siva Vaidhyanathan, The Guardian; Facebook's privacy meltdown after Cambridge Analytica is far from over

"Facebook might not be run by Bond villains. But it’s run by people who have little knowledge of or concern for democracy or the dignity of the company’s 2.3 billion users.

The privacy meltdown story should be about how one wealthy and powerful company gave our data without our permission to hundreds of companies with no transparency, oversight, or even concern about abuse. Fortunately, the story does not end with Cambridge Analytica. The United States government revealed on Wednesday that it had opened a criminal investigation into Facebook over just these practices."

If Mark Zuckerberg Wants to Talk, Britain Is Waiting: Facebook leadership has a history of lashing out instead of opening up; The New York Times, January 22, 2019

Damian Collins, The New York Times; If Mark Zuckerberg Wants to Talk, Britain Is Waiting:

Facebook leadership has a history of lashing out instead of opening up

"Mr. Collins is a member of the British Parliament....

So much of our lives is organized through social media, and many people use social media platforms as the main source of information about the world around them. We cannot allow this public space to become a complete wild West, with little or no protection for the citizen user. The rights and responsibilities that we enjoy in the real world need to exist and be protected online as well."

Facebook’s board is throwing public support behind Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg — who are on Facebook’s board; Recode, November 15, 2018

Kurt Wagner, Recode; Facebook’s board is throwing public support behind Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg — who are on Facebook’s board

[Kip Currier: Take note of the deliberate choice of words in the Facebook Board's statement copied below: 

"grossly unfair"

The Board doesn't say that allegations that Zuckerberg and Sandberg "knew about Russian interference and either tried to ignore it or prevent investigations into what had happened" were untrue. It says that the allegations were "grossly unfair". Those are two different things. The former is of a more objective nature. The latter is more subjective--and self-serving.

That "grossly unfair" phrasing telegraphs oodles of insight into the exculpatory mindset and run-the-clock-out public relations positioning of Facebook leaders: in the words of the New York Times' 11/14/18 bombshell behind-the-scenes reporting, "Delay, Deny and Deflect". 

And that "they're-doing-this-to-us" mindset is also evident in the 11/17/18 New York Times-reported words of Elliot Schrage, Facebook's former vice president of global communications and public policy, who--at an 11/14/18 Q & A for employees with Zuckerberg and Sandberg--said that "Facebook was in a difficult news cycle, and that things would eventually calm down".

Oh, and the actual makeup of the Board? You guessed it...Zuckerberg and Sandberg are "both on Facebook’s board". So, as this Recode article wryly observes, "it looks like Facebook’s executives are throwing public support behind ... themselves."

In a sense, the well-documented history of half-truths and obfuscations (see here and here) of these conflicts of interest-riven Facebook Heads shouldn't surprise us (--read Helaine Olen's 11/15/18 WaPo piece The moral and ethical rot at Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg's Facebook): they're adhering to their long-standing Utilitarianism-derived principle that "the needs of the few (i.e. anyone employed by or enriched by Facebook) outweigh the needs of the many" (i.e. the world's billions of users AND non-users who have been and continue to be impacted by Facebook's relentlessly revenue-driven, public good-eschewing practices).

The incoming House of Representatives must hold Facebook and its leaders accountable for its actions and inaction. Bring Facebook's leaders in front of Congress, under Oath, and get the answers and remedies the American people and the World are owed. That's the rightly fair thing to suggest demand from Facebook and the elected officials who represent us.

#FacebookAccountability]

"That story got us asking: Who from Facebook might be fired for the company’s missteps?

Whoever it is, it doesn’t look like it’ll be Zuckerberg or Sandberg. At least not right now.

Facebook’s board of directors issued a public statement defending the company’s efforts in fighting Russian election meddling efforts following the 2016 presidential election. It also called the story “grossly unfair.” Here’s the full statement.

“As Mark and Sheryl made clear to Congress, the company was too slow to spot Russian interference, and too slow to take action. As a board we did indeed push them to move faster. But to suggest that they knew about Russian interference and either tried to ignore it or prevent investigations into what had happened is grossly unfair. In the last eighteen months Facebook, with the full support of this board, has invested heavily in more people and better technology to prevent misuse of its services, including during elections. As the U.S. mid-term showed, they have made considerable progress and we support their continued to efforts to fight abuse and improve security.”"

‘Facebook Cannot Be Trusted to Regulate Itself’; The New York Times, November 15, 2018

The Editorial Board. The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section., The New York Times;

‘Facebook Cannot Be Trusted to Regulate Itself’

"Real accountability is not forthcoming. Even in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, there was no shake-up in the upper echelons of the company — the most high-profile departure was that of Alex Stamos, the chief security officer who — according to The Times — independently chose to investigate Russian operations on the platform, and clashed with top brass as a result. As for Mr. Zuckerberg, he is unlikely to be ousted as CEO — he is both the majority shareholder and the chairman of the board. As a result, meaningful corporate oversight does not exist at the company.

Meaningful oversight of the tech industry from the executive branch is equally absent.

That’s why the incoming House, newly in Democratic hands, should make serious oversight a priority. If the House is looking to set the agenda for the next two years, Facebook should be near the top. What ambiguities remain about what Facebook knew and when are prime subjects for hearings."

‘No Morals’: Advertisers React to Facebook Report; The New York Times, November 15, 2018

Sapna Maheshwari, The New York Times; ‘No Morals’: Advertisers React to Facebook Report

"The revelations may be “the straw that breaks the camel’s back,” said Rishad Tobaccowala, chief growth officer for the Publicis Groupe, one of the world’s biggest ad companies. “Now we know Facebook will do whatever it takes to make money. They have absolutely no morals.”

Marketers have grumbled about Facebook in the past, concerned that advertisements could appear next to misinformation and hate speech on the platform. They have complained about how the company handles consumer data and how it measures ads and its user base. But those issues were not enough to outweigh the lure of Facebook’s vast audience and the company’s insistence that it was trying to address its flaws.

 

And after this article was published online, Mr. Tobaccowala called The New York Times to add to his comments.

 

“The people there do,” he said, referring to possessing morals, “but as a business, they seem to have lost their compass.”"

Without data-targeted ads, Facebook would look like a pay service, Sandberg says; NBC, April 5, 2018

Alex Johnson and Erik Ortiz, NBC; Without data-targeted ads, Facebook would look like a pay service, Sandberg says

"The data of users is the lifeblood of Facebook, and if people want to opt out of all of the platform's data-driven advertising, they would have to pay for it, Sheryl Sandberg, the company's chief operating officer, told NBC News in an interview that aired Friday.

In an interview with "Today" co-anchor Savannah Guthrie, Sandberg again acknowledged that the company mishandled the breach that allowed Cambridge Analytica, the data analysis firm that worked with Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, to harvest information from as many as 87 million Facebook users."

Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg On Data Privacy Fail: 'We Were Way Too Idealistic'; NPR, April 5, 2018

Vanessa Romo, NPR; Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg On Data Privacy Fail: 'We Were Way Too Idealistic'

[Kip Currier: Interesting Public Relations strategy that Facebook's COO Sheryl Sandberg tested out with NPR.
What do you think--was it "idealistic" naivete, careless indifference, an intentional component of Facebook's business model and strategic planning, willful blindness, negligence, and/or something else?]

""We really believed in social experiences. We really believed in protecting privacy. But we were way too idealistic. We did not think enough about the abuse cases," [Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg] said.

Facebook, the world's largest social media company, is in the middle of a reputational crisis and faces questions from lawmakers and regulatory agencies after the political research firm Cambridge Analytica collected information on as many as 87 million people without their permission. Previous estimates had put the number of users affected at 50 million.

Now the company, which has lost about $100 billion in stock value since February, is reviewing its data policies — and changing some of them — to find better methods of protecting user data.

And its leaders are apologizing.

"We know that we did not do enough to protect people's data," Sandberg said. "I'm really sorry for that. Mark [Zuckerberg] is really sorry for that, and what we're doing now is taking really firm action."

The Federal Trade Commission is looking into whether Facebook violated a 2011 consent decree by allowing third parties to have unrestricted access to user data without users' permission and contrary to user preferences and expectations.

The penalties for violating the order would be devastating, even for Facebook. At $40,000 per violation, the total cost could theoretically run into the billions."

Facebook Privacy Scandal Unleashes Nationwide ‘Litigation Swarm'; Bloomberg, April 4, 2018

Christie Smythe, Bloomberg; Facebook Privacy Scandal Unleashes Nationwide ‘Litigation Swarm'

"Litigation Swarm

"Facebook’s having to fight on multiple fronts, with potentially conflicting strategies and obligations, is what will make this ‘litigation swarm’ problematic," said Marc Melzer, a New York-based attorney. The company will likely "want to move slowly and withhold as much as they can without antagonizing regulators or the courts that are presiding over the suits."

Users and investors have filed at least 18 lawsuits since last month’s revelations about Cambridge Analytica. Beyond privacy violations, they are accusing Facebook of user agreement breaches, negligence, consumer fraud, unfair competition, securities fraud and racketeering.

Zuckerberg, Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, and board members including Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel face additional claims from shareholders for allegedly failing to uphold their fiduciary duties and wasting corporate assets."