Read on Twitter
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://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1268602357593628675?s=20
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://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1309126132902526981?s=20
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://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/20/nick-clegg-is-on-the-wrong-side-of-history-at-facebook?CMP=share_btn_tw
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://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-russia-election-racism.html
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://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1268293717963821058
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://onezero.medium.com/inside-twitters-decision-to-fact-check-a-trump-tweet-b5a30eaa3b1d
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://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1306708846317051905?s=20
Again, bad decisions based on political winds that in hindsight are fairly obviously in need of a review. /10 https://twitter.com/JeffHorwitz/status/1323861325588684801?s=20
If you want a really good read on all of these issues, i highly recommend the NYT Magazine cover story from October. /11 https://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1316368950402392065?s=20
Excellent timeline on Twitter’s decision from @nytimes @kateconger @MikeIsaac. Compare Twitter’s counsel for decision-making to my thread 
and it becomes clear how Facebook steers towards political winds rather than than public safety. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/16/technology/inside-twitter-decision-trump.html
and it becomes clear how Facebook steers towards political winds rather than than public safety. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/16/technology/inside-twitter-decision-trump.html
When Facebook CEO Zuckerberg moderates Trump, he gets counsel from execs reporting through PR and lobbyists.
When Twitter CEO Dorsey moderates Trump, he gets counsel from content safety and integrity execs and intentionally does NOT consult with PR or Govt relations execs. /13
When Twitter CEO Dorsey moderates Trump, he gets counsel from content safety and integrity execs and intentionally does NOT consult with PR or Govt relations execs. /13
