Libra partners stampede for the exit

Visa and Mastercard are among a group of partners in Facebook’s Libra cryptocurrency venture to decide the whole thing is too risky.

It has been widely reported that internet payment platform Stripe and consumer trading site eBay have also bailed on the project, following PayPal’s decision to step away last week. The general theme of the reasons they give for pulling out is that they still like the concept, but the regulatory heat they’ve all been getting the project was unveiled is just too rich for their blood.

A couple of other factors, on top of the precedent set by PayPal, seem to have influenced the timing of the decision. The Verge reports that Visa, Mastercard and Stripe all got letters from a couple of US Senators last week, warning them of severe regulatory con sequences if they continue with Libra. In addition there’s a Libra meeting today, in which partners are supposed to formalise their commitment to the project, they were compelled to make a choice one way or the other in advance of it.

“Facebook appears to want the benefits of engaging in financial activities without the responsibility of being regulated as a financial services company,” said the most ominous part of the letters. “If you take this on, you can expect a high level of scrutiny from regulators not only on Libra-related activities, but on all payment activities.”

Having the two dominant global financial services providers pull out is obviously pretty bad news for Libra. It now faces the task of convincing them the threatened regulatory Armageddon won’t come to pass, which won’t be easy. David Marcus, one of the founders of the project, attempted damage limitation on Twitter, but all eyes will be on the outcome of today’s meeting.

 

Facebook’s Libra cryptocurrency coalition starts to crumble

Internet financial services giant PayPal is the first member of the Libra coalition to jump ship and probably won’t be the last.

When Facebook announced its audacious cryptocurrency ambitions earlier this year it derived a lot of its legitimacy from persuading a bunch of major financial services providers to formally back the project. Within days, however, regulatory authorities around the world expressed major concerns about the project and indicated they were unlikely to let it go ahead. Stories later emerged of some of the partners getting nervous about the amount of regulatory heat the project was getting.

Now this first of them has formally bailed on the whole thing, with PayPal notifying US media that it has decided to forgo further participation in the Libra Association before muttering about focusing on the day job. It also slightly hedged its position by saying it still thinks Libra is a great idea and it still wants to be friends with Facebook.

If the Libra Association’s response is anything to go by, PayPal’s hopes that Facebook won’t take this personally seem forlorn. The statement it provided to media started by opining that it takes guts to be involved in such an ambitious project and concluded by indicating that it’s pleased to be rid of any wimpy companies that can’t handle a little bit of adversity as early as possible.

That’s a good dig, but Libra should be careful what it wishes for. The coalition is a very loose one, with the members only having gone so far as to back the idea in principle, without committing to anything more substantial, so it’s very easy to bail out at this stage. Having said that, what did the participants expect when they announced their intention to create a new global currency? Of course there was going to be resistance and PayPal looks, at the very least, naïve for losing its nerve so quickly.

UK, US and Australia demand security delay from Facebook

Politicians from the UK, the US and Australia have penned an open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg requesting the team delay end-to-end encryption plans.

Signed by UK Secretary of State Priti Patel, US Attorney General William Barr, Acting-Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan, and Australian Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton, the letter requests that before any encryption technologies are applied to messaging services Facebook includes a means for enforcement agencies to access the content transmitted across the platforms.

Once again, politicians are defying logic by requesting the creation of a backdoor to by-pass the security and privacy features which are being implemented on messaging platforms and services.

“We are committed to working with you to focus on reasonable proposals that will allow Facebook and our governments to protect your users and the public, while protecting their privacy,” the letter states. “Our technical experts are confident that we can do so while defending cyber security and supporting technological innovation.”

It is as if the politicians do not live in the real world. We understand governments have a duty to protect society, and part of this will include monitoring the communications and activities of nefarious individuals, but this is not the right way to go about doing it.

Using the argument of security to undermine security and make citizens less secure is a preposterous idea, almost laughable. The ‘technical experts’ might be confident a backdoor can be built, but how do you protect it? This letter is requesting the construction of a vulnerability into security features, and once a vulnerability is there, it is only a matter of time before it is exposed by the suspect individuals in the rotting corners of society.

What is being suggested here is similar to building a high-security facility in the real world, with 15-foot, electrified walls, guards and watch-dogs, helicopters patrolling overhead, but then asking to leave the backdoor unlocked. It doesn’t matter how good defences are, eventually someone will find their way to the backdoor, open it and then let all his/her friends know how it was done. Chaos would eventually find a way.

This is of course a theoretical situation, the hackers might never find a way to or through the backdoor, but why tempt fate? No-one leaves their home believing they might be burgled that night, but they lock the door in any case. Why create a situation where the prospect of chaos is a possibility, irrelevant as to how faint? This seems like nothing more than simple logic.

As mentioned before, police forces and intelligence agencies are being tasked with keeping society safe. This is a very difficult job, especially with the progress of technology. Facebook, and others in the technology industry, should assist wherever possible (and legal), though this is not the right way to go about the situation.

This does put Facebook in a difficult position. The company is currently attempting to repair the damage to its reputation, as well as re-gain trust from both governments and wider society. However, it is increasingly looking like an impossible situation to satisfy both parties.

In March, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg outlined a new focus for the company; it would hold the concept of privacy dear, and all new services will be built with privacy at the forefront of demands. Thanks to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook’s reputation as a guardian of personal information has been severely damaged, thus this new approach is critical to regaining credibility in the eyes of its users.

However, end-to-end encryption is a key element of this privacy strategy. Facebook cannot fulfil its promise to the user and satisfy the demands being laid out in this letter. If it was to build in a vulnerability, it could not tell the user in all honesty it has done everything possible to ensure security and privacy.

As the letter states, Facebook is doing more to clean-up its platform.

“In 2018, Facebook made 16.8 million reports to the US National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) – more than 90% of the 18.4 million total reports that year,” the letter states. “As well as child abuse imagery, these referrals include more than 8,000 reports related to attempts by offenders to meet children online and groom or entice them into sharing indecent imagery or meeting in real life.”

This is the situation which Facebook is in. It is never going to be able to remove all the hideous conversations and activity on its platform, but governments will demand it does. Something will always slip through the net, and the sharp stick of the law will be there to punish the company. Facebook will never be able to do enough to satisfy the demands of governments, and therefore will always be a defensive position.

However, you should not be distracted by the rhetoric which is being put forward in this letter. Yes, there are some horrendous activities which occur on the platform. Yes, Facebook should, and probably could, do more to assist police forces and intelligence services. Yes, the digital economy has largely shirked responsibility in the years leading to today. But no, building vulnerabilities in the system is not the right way forward.

These politicians are saying the right things to gain public support. These actions are in the pursuit of catching child molesters and terrorists; who wouldn’t want to help? But you have to look at the collateral damage. Users would be left open to identify theft, fraud and blackmail. These messaging platforms are used to have private conversations, exchange bank account details and discuss holiday plans. The number of criminals which could be caught is nothing compared to the billions who would be exposed to hackers on the web.

The idea which is presented here does have good intentions, but it pays no consideration to the collateral damage. The negatives of introducing a backdoor vastly outweigh the positives.

Quite frankly, we are still surprised to be having this conversation. Undermining security is no way to improve security. Governments need to understand this is not a viable option.

Europe wants Facebook to implement its censorship requests globally

A new ruling by the EU Court of Justice seems to compel social media companies to enact EU censorship demands even outside of its jurisdiction.

The judgment was made on the case of Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland, in which the Austrian Green Party politician seeks to force Facebook to remove content that she feels is harmful to her reputation and anything that sounds a bit like it. The court was asked to interpret the Directive on electronic commerce and concluded it doesn’t prevent member states from imposing the following on ‘host providers’, which seems to mean all social media platforms and maybe beyond.

  • To remove information which it stores, the content of which is identical to the content of information which was previously declared to be unlawful, or to block access to that information, irrespective of who requested the storage of that information;
  • To remove information which it stores, the content of which is equivalent to the content of information which was previously declared to be unlawful, or to block access to that information, provided that the monitoring of and search for the information concerned by such an injunction are limited to information conveying a message the content of which remains essentially unchanged compared with the content which gave rise to the finding of illegality and containing the elements specified in the injunction, and provided that the differences in the wording of that equivalent content, compared with the wording characterising the information which was previously declared to be illegal, are not such as to require the host provider to carry out an independent assessment of that content (thus, the host provider may have recourse to automated search tools and technologies);
  • To remove information covered by the injunction or to block access to that information worldwide within the framework of the relevant international law, and it is up to Member States to take that law into account.

In other words, if an EU member state decides a bit of online content should be censored, there’s nothing stopping it legally compelling internet platforms to remove it and anything its algorithms consider to be similar to it on a global basis. This seems to put enormous power of censorship in the hands of EU claimants who can afford to litigate.

“This judgment has major implications for online freedom of expression around the world,” said Thomas Hughes, Executive Director of free speech campaign group Article 19. “Compelling social media platforms like Facebook to automatically remove posts regardless of their context will infringe our right to free speech and restrict the information we see online. The judgment does not take into account the limitations of technology when it comes to automated filters.

“The ruling also mean that a court in one EU member state will be able to order the removal of social media posts in other countries, even if they are not considered unlawful there. This would set a dangerous precedent where the courts of one country can control what Internet users in another country can see. This could be open to abuse, particularly by regimes with weak human rights records.”

As calls for censorship mount, the global policing of speech on the internet is becoming impossibly convoluted. Will the EU now seek to punish Facebook, or whoever, if a bit of content it doesn’t like is accessible somewhere outside of its jurisdiction, and if so how? What if courts in the other country take a different view? As ever the only solution is to not censor in the first place.

Zuckerberg comes out swinging in face of break-up tension

Via a leaked audio-recording of a Facebook townhall meeting with employees, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has taken a combative position in the face of increasing pressure.

Taking questions from Facebook employees, Zuckerberg has taken a much more forthright and confident stance than he generally does when in the shiny lights of the public domain. The leaked audio files, courtesy of the Verge, paint a picture of a man who is prepared to go to war to protect the gargantuan company he has built over the last decade.

“So, there might be a political movement where people are angry at the tech companies or are worried about concentration or worried about different issues and worried that they’re not being handled well,” Zuckerberg said.

“That doesn’t mean that, even if there’s anger and that you have someone like Elizabeth Warren who thinks that the right answer is to break up the companies … I mean, if she gets elected president, then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge, and I would bet that we will win the legal challenge.”

Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat Senator representing Massachusetts, is looking like the biggest political opponent of Silicon Valley. And it is becoming increasingly clear Facebook is enemy number one.

But perhaps these comments indicate just why Washington and its political leadership is acting so aggressively towards the likes of Facebook, Google and Amazon. These are companies who no-longer fear the political establishment. They are arguably more influential, and as you can see from the comments above, they believe they have the upper-hand when it comes to legal arsenals.

As we have mentioned before, this is one of the reasons we suspect politicians are taking such a firm stance against Silicon Valley in 2019. Not only are the actions and business models of these firms’ easy pickings for PR points, Washington DC seemingly does not like it is not the most influential neighbourhood in North America anymore.

On the other side of the debate, Warren has not kept her opinions about Facebook to herself or even attempted to disguise that some of the tweets have been directed towards Zuckerberg.

“We have to fix a corrupt system that lets giant companies like Facebook engage in illegal anticompetitive practices, stomp on consumer privacy rights, and repeatedly fumble their responsibility to protect our democracy,” Warren said in one tweet.

“Zuckerberg himself said Facebook is ‘more like a government than a traditional company’. They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, undermined our democracy, and tilted the playing field against everyone else,” she said in another.

“Facebook’s anti-competitive mergers mean they face no real pressure to tackle disinformation. They won’t even do the bare minimum to improve transparency. Tech giants shouldn’t be able to wield enough power to undermine our democracy,” a final one read.

Facebook seems to be the focal point of Warren’s anger, though this might be down to the leaked audio, as well as the concentration of power at Facebook. Zuckerberg himself has admitted that his voting power at the company has made him a target for the politically ambitious, though this is not the only company which is facing pressure.

All of the major players in the Big Tech fraternity are becoming targets and it the raising temperature might hit boiling point before too long. Some of these companies might be willing to accept fines simply because they don’t make that much of a dent in the spreadsheets, but it would not be a surprise to see some aggression coming back the other direction before too long.

Silicon Valley and Washington DC both have ambitions to be the most prominent voice in the ears of the US consumer, but only one can secure that mantle.

UK starts laying groundwork for another assault on privacy

UK Home Secretary Priti Patel is reportedly to sign a transatlantic agreement offering the UK Government more clout over the stubborn messaging platforms.

First and foremost, this is not a pact between the UK and US which would compel the messaging platforms to break their encryption protections, but it is a step towards offering the UK Government more opportunity.

According to The Times, Patel will sign an agreement with the US next month which will offer the UK powers to compel US companies which offer messaging services to handover data to police forces, intelligence services and prosecutors. After the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act was signed into law last year, the US Government was afforded the opportunity to share more data with foreign governments, and this would appear to be the first of such agreements.

This is of course not the first time the UK Government has set its eyes on undermining user privacy. Former-Home Secretary Amber Rudd was the champion of the Government efforts to break the blockage during yesteryear, attempting to force these companies to introduce ‘backdoors’ which would enable the access of information.

There are of course numerous reasons why this would be seen as an awful idea. Firstly, the introduction of a back-door is a vulnerability by design. It doesn’t matter how well secured it is, if there is a vulnerability the nefarious actors in the darker corners of the web will find it.

Secondly, stringent security measures should not be undermined for the sake of it or because the consumer is not driven by security as a reason for using the services. Your correspondent does not buy a car because it has the best airbags, but he would be irked if they didn’t work when called upon.

Finally, governments and public offices have not proven themselves responsible enough to hand over such a potential violation of the human right to privacy. And let’s not forget, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is solely focused on privacy.

What is worth noting is this pact with the US Government is not a measure to introduce back-doors into encryption software, but you should always bear in mind what the UK Government is driving towards with incremental steps. It is easy to forget the bigger picture when small steps are made, but how often have you looked back and wondered how we got to a certain situation?

The CLOUD Act offers the US agencies the right to collect limited information from the messaging platform providers. Currently, US authorities can request information such as who the user is messaging, when and the frequency. The law does not grant access to the content of the messages, though it is a step towards wielding greater control and influence over the social media companies.

Should Patel sign this agreement, and it is still an if right now, this power would be extended to the UK Government to collect information on UK citizens.

What is worth noting is this is not official, though it would not surprise us. Rudd attempted to revolutionise the relationship between the UK Government and messaging platforms, and this failed spectacularly. This would be a more reasonable approach, taking baby steps towards the ultimate goal.

Facebook next on the list to face DOJ probe – report

Facebook is being touted as the latest Silicon Valley resident to face an antitrust investigation from the Department of Justice.

Alongside the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the House of Representative Judiciary Committee and a coalition of Attorney Generals, the Department of Justice (DOJ) will be aiming to keep Facebook lawyers on their toes. From the regulatory and litigious perspective, the social media giant is having a bit of a miserable time.

Although details of the investigation are relatively thin right now, Reuters is suggesting the official announcement could be in the near future. The DOJ has already suggesting it will be launched various investigations into online platforms, though it has not been the most open with which companies it intends to focus on.

This investigation will specifically focus on competition, though it should hardly come as a surprise Facebook is facing scrutiny considering the 2020 Election campaigns are closing in fast.

While it was never definitively proved if any of the US politicians were using the platform nefariously, there have been numerous research projects and documentaries which demonstrate the power of big data and the specific reach of Facebook. Combine these two elements with a shoddy system for identifying and removing fake news, and the social media platform is a potent weapon in the battle for attention.

Facebook is likely to be the focal point of many elements of the campaigns over the next 12 months, which can perhaps explain why it is coming under so much regulatory scrutiny. This is an incredibly powerful and influential company; should it be allowed to remain in such a prominent position, especially when it has not shown itself to be the most responsible?

Although it is an aspect which has never been officially raised, some must also be asking themselves whether the residents of Silicon Valley are now more influential than the politicians of Washington DC. We suspect they are, and this will not be a position many in the capital will want to see continue.

This investigation, assuming the rumours are true of course, will focus on competition however it is a single pixel of the bigger picture. Ultimately it looks like the US Government is trying to put the shackles on Big Tech. The companies have powered the economy for years, but now they are having fundamental impact on politics and society, the line has seemingly been crossed.

Facebook starts taking data guardian role seriously

Facebook needs to get back in the good books of both regulators and the general public sharpish, and it seems it is taking a machete to the developer ecosystem to do so.

As part of the agreement with the Federal Trade Commission, Facebook has promised to create a more comprehensive oversight model for the development and implementation of apps on its platform, and it does seem to be taking its responsibility seriously this time around. Whether this prevents a repeat of the Cambridge Analytica scandal which kicked-off the privacy debate remains to be seen, though it is making the right noises.

“Our App Developer Investigation is by no means finished,” said Ime Archibong, VP of Product Partnerships.

“But there is meaningful progress to report so far. To date, this investigation has addressed millions of apps. Of those, tens of thousands have been suspended for a variety of reasons while we continue to investigate.”

Although it is very difficult to figure out how many app developers and applications there are actually on the Facebook platform at any single point, Archibong has stated that 400 developers have been deemed to be breaking the rules. These 400 are responsible for the ‘tens of thousands’ of apps which have been suspended.

While this is a promising start from the social media giant, it will have to do a lot more. We struggle to believe the number of suspect app developers is as low as 400. There might be 400 in London, but worldwide it is going to be a number which is monstrously larger.

This is where Facebook will struggle to be the perfect guardian of our digital lives. With the number of developers and apps unthinkable it will never be able to protect us from every bad actor. Whether best effort is good enough for the critics remains to be seen.

Dating back to March 2018, this is a saga which Facebook cannot shake-off. The general public, politicians and regulators were all enraged by what can only be described as gross negligence from the social media giant. Rules were in place, though there were not nearly comprehensive enough and rarely were bad actors put to the sword and held accountable.

This is what Facebook has to prove to its critics; it is a company which is responsible and can act as an effective guardian of the user’s personal information. It is currently being judged in court of public opinion, a very difficult place to make any progress when the masses are baying for blood.

Although the Cambridge Analytica scandal is only part of the problem, it was the incident which turned the tides against the technology industry. Along with other privacy scandals and debatable business practices, Silicon Valley is being placed under the microscope and it is not working out well. Best case scenario for the likes of Facebook and Google is stricter regulation, though the worst outcome could see acquisitions reversed in the pursuit of increased competition and diluted influence at these companies.

This Facebook investigation is looking to identify the developers who are most likely to break the rules, though there are stricter guidelines being put in place. Archibong is suggesting many of the quiz apps which plague the platform will be banned moving forward, as many will be judged to collect too much information when measured against the value which they offer. Moving forward, these developers shouldn’t be able to get away with it.

This in itself is the problem; Facebook was asleep at the wheel. It created a valuable product and then started to count the cash. It didn’t evolve the rules as the platform grew into an entirely different proposition and it didn’t keep an eye on whether app developers were breaking the basic rules which it had in place anyway.

If Facebook’s quest continues on its current trajectory, the developer ecosystem might have to work a bit harder to access personal information. Apps with very limited functionality and value will not be granted access to the same treasure troves, while the team will also have to prove collecting personal information will improve experience for the user.

Another interesting point which was raised in the commitment is an annual review. Archibong is suggesting every app will be assessed on a yearly basis, and those who do not respond effectively to the audits will be temporarily suspended or banned.

It remains to be seen whether Facebook is doing enough to keep critics happy, though there is no such thing as being heavy-handed here. Facebook will have to take the strictest approach, over compensating even, to ensure it regains the trust and credibility it threw away through inaction.

US lawmakers want to look at private emails from tech execs

Scrutiny of the US tech giants has been taken up another level after members of the US House Judiciary Committee have demanded they expose their internal workings.

The move has been widely reported in the US, including by the Washington Post. It seems there is already a congressional antitrust investigation underway into Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google, which is presumably related to the actions taken against Google and Facebook earlier this week. They want to know whether the companies have abused their dominant positions to corrupt markets for digital products and services in their favour.

One of the fun things about getting legislators and lawyers involved in scrutinizing the activities of companies is that they have the power to demand access to a bunch of information that would normally be kept locked in a dark cellar, to which only the CEO has a key. The stuff this committee would like financial data about includes their products and services, and private discussions about potential merger targets, we’re told.

Having said that the letters sent apparently don’t have any legal weight behind them right now, so the companies could theoretically refuse. This is a dangerous game to play, however, as they would have to refuse in a way that didn’t imply they had something to hide. Perhaps they could just chuck over some light-hearted Friday afternoon email banter while whistling nonchalantly.

What seems unavoidable is that the state machinery in the US and elsewhere has the tech giants in its sights and seems to have decided the lot of them have far too much power by half. Since they are undeniably dominant their execs and legal departments would be well advised to buckle in for the long haul. They could also do worse than speak to grizzled campaigners from companies like Microsoft and Intel to get some top tips.

Silicon Valley drops the ball on censorship once more

Yet another set of ill-considered censorship decisions by Silicon Valley has illustrated once more the impossible position they are in.

Google has announced it will now ‘elevate original reporting in search’. On one level this is totally laudable. Modern journalism has been severely corrupted by the wholesale shift in advertising spend from print to journalism and thus put in the hands of the digital advertising platforms, of which the biggest is Google itself.

The move to digital has squeezed media margins, with advertisers looking for demonstrable ROI where once the circulation and brand of a publication was sufficient reassurance of ad money well spent. As a result the total number of journalists employed has dropped dramatically which, in combination with the explosion of digital publications, has meant each remaining hack has to produce much more content than previously.

Digital ad spend also directly rewards direct traffic in a way print never did, which means media are incentivised to publish a high volume of ‘click bait’ journalism, which is typically of a low standard and designed more to provoke than inform. Of all the companies in the world Google is easily the most directly culpable for this trend and now it’s belatedly trying to correct it.

“While we typically show the latest and most comprehensive version of a story in news results, we’ve made changes to our products globally to highlight articles that we identify as significant original reporting,” said Richard Gringras, head of Google News. “Such articles may stay in a highly visible position longer.”

There’s a lot to like about this. Prominence in Google news equals more clicks, which equals more revenue. If follows, therefore, that any tweaks to the algorithm that promote proper reporting (which is much more expensive than opinion or re-reporting) are a step in the right direction. But Gringras himself acknowledged the complexity of the situation this puts Google in, in his next paragraph.

“There is no absolute definition of original reporting, nor is there an absolute standard for establishing how original a given article is,” said Gringras. “It can mean different things to different newsrooms and publishers at different times, so our efforts will constantly evolve as we work to understand the life cycle of a story.”

In other words Google decides what news is worthy of delivering to the public. Even if we assume those decisions will always be made in good faith and that the associated algorithms will somehow be furnished, in real time, with the most exhaustive context, this is still a lot power to be put in the hands of one commercial entity.

On top of that Gringras himself was the head of digital publisher Salon before moving to Google in 2011. Salon is widely recognised to be significantly biased in favour of perspectives and issues considered to be left wing and you have to assume its long time boss is also that way inclined. How can we be sure his own political positions don’t influence the decision-making of his team? US President Donald Trump will doubtless be asking that very question before long.

What media spend hasn’t shifted to Google has been mostly hoovered up by fellow Silicon Valley giant Facebook. As a social media platform it faces an even greater censorship challenge than Google (if you just focus on the search bit, not YouTube) and has been even less consistent and coherent in its approach, leaving it open to extensive accusations of bias.

Facebook’s latest attempt to clarify its censorship policies offers little clarity or reassurance to its users. Here are the new criteria, as copied from the official announcement.

  • Authenticity: We want to make sure the content people are seeing on Facebook is authentic. We believe that authenticity creates a better environment for sharing, and that’s why we don’t want people using Facebook to misrepresent who they are or what they’re doing.
  • Safety: We are committed to making Facebook a safe place. Expression that threatens people has the potential to intimidate, exclude or silence others and isn’t allowed on Facebook.
  • Privacy: We are committed to protecting personal privacy and information. Privacy gives people the freedom to be themselves, and to choose how and when to share on Facebook and to connect more easily.
  • Dignity: We believe that all people are equal in dignity and rights. We expect that people will respect the dignity of others and not harass or degrade others. 

While privacy seems relatively easy to determine and thus police, authenticity, safety and dignity are very subjective, ill-defined concepts. Facebook could arbitrarily determine almost anything to be inauthentic or undignified, so all this announcement really does is assert Facebook’s right to unilaterally censor its platform.

The Facebook announcement comes the day after reports of it censoring a piece of content published on it that challenged the claims made in another piece concerning abortion. This isn’t the place to examine the relative merits of the positions stated, but since abortion is one of the most polarising issues out there, and that balancing the rights of the mother and infant is a uniquely challenging ethical dilemma, for Facebook to apparently pick a side in this case has inevitably led to accusations of bias.

Lastly even crowdfunding service Kickstarter is under pressure to censor projects on its platform. A comic titled ‘Always Punch Nazis’ was taken down after claims that it violated Kickstarter’s community guidelines. Slate reports that many Kickstarter employees objected to this decision, which resulted in it being reversed but also claims of recriminations against some prominent protesters. This in turn has led to moves to unionize among Kickstart staff.

Once more we see that it’s impossible for a digital platform to issue watertight ‘community guidelines’ and that arbitrary censorship decisions will always be vulnerable to accusations of bias. The comic claimed to be satirical, which should offer at least some protection, but it still falls on someone to assess that claim.

Prior to the internet there were very few opportunities for regular punters to be published, let alone to a global audience. Social media especially has revolutionised the public dissemination of information and opinion, while concentrating the policing of it in the hands of a few democratically unaccountable companies. They will continue to try to perfect their censorship policies and they will continue to fail.