WhatsApp making progress on WeChat emulation ambitions

Facebook has been promising some sort of payments solution for WhatsApp, and it seems to be making a bit of progress in Indonesia.

According to reports from Reuters, Facebook is in discussions with several potential partners to offer a mobile payment feature in the app in Indonesia. Although this is not Facebook’s first venture into mobile money, there is a stuttering initiative in India, the Indonesian experiment will focus on creating a digital wallet to tap into one of the worlds’ fastest growing eCommerce markets.

Earlier this year, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg suggested to investors a wander towards mobile money was an ambition of the business, though this should actually surprise few. When you consider the success of Tencent-owned WeChat in diversifying the offering of the messaging app, Facebook is playing catch-up.

For those who haven’t used WeChat, what you can actually do is quite remarkable. The app was solely focused on messaging to start with, but now you can send images, make phone calls, peer-to-peer payments are included, as are in-store purchase via NFC and paying utility bills. Soon enough, cards could become redundant, such is the growing usage of mobile payments through digital wallets and WeChat.

If Facebook could capture a slice of this success, WhatsApp might start to begin paying off the $19 billion Facebook had to fork out during the acquisition.

The original purchase of WhatsApp was seemingly a means to capture a messaging application which was taking the world by storm. However, the data which WhatsApp would have offered the Facebook advertising machine would have been very beneficial. The team has found integrating the two platforms very difficult to date, though mobile money is certainly a way of creating additional revenues.

In Indonesia, the Facebook team is in discussions with several partners to tap into the eCommerce platform, though in India it is focusing on peer-to-peer payments in-app. There are several reasons for the differing approach, regulatory barriers being one, though experimenting with two ideas could offer two new features for a global rollout.

Interestingly enough, something which might get the White House twitchy is the alleged conversation with one of the potential partners; mobile payments firm DANA, which is backed by Ant Financial, an affiliate company of the Chinese Alibaba Group. Considering the current relationship between Washington and Beijing, these must be interesting conversations.

Globally, this is a very good move from Facebook. According to data from Sensor Tower, WhatsApp was the most downloaded application during the first quarter, with 223 million new installs, taking the total north of an estimated 1.5 billion users worldwide. This is a massive addressable audience, representing huge potential if the team can get all the moving parts to align.

Twitter and Facebook move to block Chinese state-backed disinformation campaign

US social media sites have announced coordinated action designed to counter a propaganda campaign apparently designed to undermine the Hong Kong democracy protests.

Twitter was the first site alerted to this activity, with some users flagging up sponsored posts from state-run media that seemed biased against the mass gatherings in Hong Kong that are protesting moves to give the Chinese state greater power over the semi-autonomous region.

Twitter also published a blog post titled Information operations directed at Hong Kong, in which it said “We are disclosing a significant state-backed information operation focused on the situation in Hong Kong, specifically the protest movement and their calls for political change.” This took the form of almost a thousand phoney accounts apparently designed to amplify messaging undermining the legitimacy of the Hong Kong protests, which have now been suspended.

Removing any doubt about censorship activity being coordinated between internet giants, Facebook then announced it is acting on a tip from Twitter to remove a few accounts suspected of ‘inauthentic behaviour’ from China. “Although the people behind this activity attempted to conceal their identities, our investigation found links to individuals associated with the Chinese government,” said the Facebook announcement.

Lastly, while not explicitly referring to China, this propaganda campaign has clearly prompted Twitter to announce it will no longer accept advertising from state-controlled news media entities. Somewhat belatedly is has dawned on Twitter that state-controlled media is sometimes a tiny bit biased towards the state that controls it, which can have direct political consequences. Who knew?

Meanwhile US President Donald Trump is persisting with his claims that Google exerted some deliberate influence against him in the 2016 US general election. He cites an unspecified report that claims up to 16 million votes were manipulated in favour of his opponent Hilary Clinton in the election and called for Google to be sued.


Clinton herself has unsurprisingly queried the validity of the claim by attacking the, still unspecified, source. A number of other media have also criticised the presumed source of the claim, most of which make no secret of their antipathy towards Trump. As ever Trump’s tweet will have an underlying tactical purpose, in this case to threaten Google and any other internet company that maybe tempted to use its platform to favour his 2020 opponent.

Facebook faces yet another monstrous privacy headache in Illinois

Just as the Cambridge Analytica scandal re-emerged to heighten Facebook frustrations, the social media giant is contemplating a class-action lawsuit regarding facial-recognition.

It has been a tough couple of weeks for Facebook. With the ink still wet on a $5 billion FTC fine, the UK Government questioning discrepancies in evidence presented to Parliamentary Committees and a Netflix documentary reopening the wounds of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the last thing needed was another headache. This is exactly what has been handed across to Mountain View from Illinois.

In a 3-0 ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District has ruled against Facebook, allowing for a class-action lawsuit following the implementation of facial-recognition technologies without consultation or the creation of public policy.

“Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Facebook subjected them to facial-recognition technology without complying with an Illinois statute intended to safeguard their privacy,” the court opinion states.

“Because a violation of the Illinois statute injures an individual’s concrete right to privacy, we reject Facebook’s claim that the plaintiffs have failed to allege a concrete injury-in-fact for purposes of Article III standing. Additionally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class.”

After introducing facial recognition technologies to the platform to offer tag suggestions on uploaded photos and video content in 2010, Facebook was the subject to a lawsuit under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. This law compels companies to create public policy before implementing facial-recognition technologies and analysing biometric data, a means to protect the privacy rights of consumers.

Facebook appealed against the lawsuit, suggesting the plaintiffs had not demonstrated material damage, therefore the lower courts in California were exceeding granted responsibilities. However, the appeals court has dismissed this opinion. The lawsuit will proceed as planned.

The law in question was enacted in 2008, with the intention of protecting consumer privacy. As biometric data can be seen as unique as a social security number, legislators feared the risk of identity theft, as well as the numerous unknowns as to how this technology could be implemented in the future. This was a protectionary piece of legislation and does look years ahead of its time when you consider the inability of legislators to create relevant rules today.

As part of this legislation, private companies are compelled to establish a “retention

schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information”. The statute also forces companies to obtain permission before applying biometric technologies used to identify individuals or analyse and retain data.

Facebook is not arguing it was compliant with the requirements but suggested as there have been no material damages to individuals or their right to privacy, the lawsuit should have been dismissed by the lower courts in California. The senior judges clearly disagree.

But what could this lawsuit actually mean?

Firstly, you have the reputational damage. Facebook’s credibility is dented at best and shattered at worst, depending on who you talk to of course. The emergence of the Netflix documentary ‘The Great Hack’, detailing the Cambridge Analytica scandal, is dragging the brand through the mud once again, while questions are also being asked whether the management team directly misread the UK Government.

Secondly, you have to look at the financial impact. Facebook is a profit-machine, but few will be happy with another fine. It was only three weeks ago the FTC issued a $5 billion fine for various privacy inadequacies over the last decade, while this is a lawsuit which could become very expensive, very quickly.

Not only will Facebook have to hire another battalion of lawyers to combat the threat posed by the likes of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy &Technology and the Illinois PIRG Education Fund, the pay-out could be significant.

Depending on the severity of the violation, users could be entitled to a single sum between $1000-$5000. Should Facebook lose this legal foray, the financial damage could be in the 100s of millions or even billions.

From a reputational and financial perspective, this lawsuit could be very damaging to Facebook.

Trump threatens Google over claimed political bias

US President Donald Trump has directed his ire towards Silicon Valley once more, this time warning Google about meddling in the 2020 Presidential election.

As ever Trump used Twitter to fire his latest broadside at the tech sector, once more focusing on his pet topic of political bias (largely against him) facilitated by the big internet platforms. In a series of tweets Trump made reference to a whistle-blower at Google, who alleged anti-conservative bias within the company.

If Trump had more proof of these allegations than one or two whistle-blowers he would presumably be doing more than sending menacing tweets, but this seems to indicate that he’s actively looking for it. Much of the media, even the usually neutral and objective Reuters, has chosen to characterise Trumps allegation as being ‘without evidence’, but surely the public testimony of a Google employee, while not necessarily outright proof, is certainly evidence.

While we’re on Trump’s Twitter account, he also recently accused China of currency manipulation, following the fall of the value of the Yuan to historical lows. One of the core gripes with China as a global trading partner is that it devalues the Yuan in order to help its exporters and Trump’s tweets coincide with the US Department of the Treasury officially designating China as a currency manipulator.

General commentary of this move characterises it as a new front in the trade war between the US and China and is likely to lead to some kind of tit-for-tat retaliation. All this currency aggro is considered to be the main cause of a sharp global stock market decline in the past week, as investors are understandably skittish as they wait for further developments.

YouTube creators unionize to combat demonetization and censorship

In its desperation to placate corporate advertisers YouTube has antagonized many of its independent creators, but now they’re fighting back.

YouTube has to strike a delicate balance between the needs of independent creators, who generate most of its traffic, and corporate advertisers, who provide most of its revenue. For the past couple of years, whenever an advertiser has complained about a type of content, YouTube has usually moved to ensure that content has no ads served on it – demonetization. Since a cut of ad revenue is often the sole source of income for the YouTuber, this can have devastating consequences.

More rarely YouTube will also censor entire videos or even ban certain creators from the platform entirely. Recently YouTube’s apparent decision to side with Vox journalist Carlos Maza in a dispute with YouTuber Stephen Crowder, and subsequently impose fresh censorship rules, led to further claims of bias against independent creators, despite its CEO’s claims to the contrary.

Now we have the news that an obscure ‘YouTubers union’ has joined forces with IG Metall – Germany an Europe’s largest industrial union, to form the campaigning group FairTube. This is remarkable for a number of reasons, not least because the digital world has seemed to have no place for trades unions until now.

FairTube has called for the following from YouTube and given it until 23 August to engage with it, or else.

  • Publish all categories and decision criteria that affect monetization and views of videos
  • Give clear explanations for individual decisions — for example, if a video is demonetized, which parts of the video violated which criteria in the Advertiser-Friendly Content Guidelines?
  • Give YouTubers a human contact person who is qualified and authorized to explain decisions that have negative consequences for YouTubers (and fix them if they are mistaken)
  • Let YouTubers contest decisions that have negative consequences
  • Create an independent mediation board for resolving disputes (here the Ombuds Office of the Crowdsourcing Code of Conduct can offer relevant lessons)
  • Formal participation of YouTubers in important decisions, for example through a YouTuber Advisory Board

Exactly what FairTube will do if YouTube doesn’t play ball is unclear. Traditional industrial action is unlikely as it’s hard to see how they could get YouTubers to down tools in sufficient numbers to have a significant effect on YouTube traffic. But in the latter half of the video below you can see that FairTube has three avenues it thinks it could pursue to escalate.

  1. Contesting the status of YouTube creators as self-employed, thus creating a greater duty of care on YouTube towards its creators.
  2. Claiming GDPR violations due to YouTube’s refusal to give creators the data it stores about them and which it does share with advertisers.
  3. Old fashioned collective action – not so much striking as spreading the word and joining the union to put collective pressure on YouTube and its own Google.

 

Unstated but baked into this last point is the growing regulatory and antitrust pressure being put on all internet platforms, not least by US president Donald Trump. Meanwhile the European Union, while having the turning circle of a supertanker, can impose some pretty severe sanctions when it gets its act together. We’ll leave you with YouTuber Tim Pool’s analysis of the move.

 

FTC hits Facebook with $5bn privacy fine

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has hit Facebook with a fine of $5 billion relating to numerous privacy violations over the last few years.

The fine itself, which is the largest ever imposed on any company for violating consumers’ privacy, will be accompanied by broad changes to its consumer privacy practices. The decision will also force Facebook to add in more decision-making capability on its privacy policies.

“Despite repeated promises to its billions of users worldwide that they could control how their personal information is shared, Facebook undermined consumers’ choices,” said FTC Chairman Joe Simons.

“The magnitude of the $5 billion penalty and sweeping conduct relief are unprecedented in the history of the FTC. The relief is designed not only to punish future violations but, more importantly, to change Facebook’s entire privacy culture to decrease the likelihood of continued violations.”

The accusations directed towards Facebook will sound very familiar. Whether it is using deceptive disclosures or secretive settings to disguise features and undermine privacy principles, or violation of previous commitments made to privacy in a 2012 FTC Order and dubious data-sharing relationships with third-parties, Facebook is facing a massive disruption to the way it manages data and approaches user privacy.

Looking at the changes Facebook will have to make, CEO Mark Zuckerberg is no-longer allowed to be the single decision maker for privacy policies, a position which was ridiculous in the first place. Facebook will also be forced to appoint an ‘independent privacy committee’ to ensure a position which is consistent with society’s expectations.

Privacy policies will filter down through the organization, theoretically, through the appointment of Compliance Officers. Another condition set upon Facebook is granting more powers to independent third-party assessors, who will conduct privacy orders every other year.

There are numerous other orders placed on Facebook as part of the negotiation between the FTC and the social media giant, including:

  • Facebook must exercise greater oversight over third-party apps
  • Phone numbers obtained to enable a security feature cannot be used in advertising mechanisms
  • Facebook must provide clear and conspicuous notice of its use of facial recognition technology
  • Facebook must encrypt user passwords and regularly audit security systems

While many of these demands from the FTC might be considered as business practise in today’s privacy conscious world, they are likely to cause a disruption for Facebook internally.

“After months of negotiations, we’ve reached an agreement with the Federal Trade Commission that provides a comprehensive new framework for protecting people’s privacy and the information they give us,” said Facebook General Counsel Colin Stretch.

“The agreement will require a fundamental shift in the way we approach our work and it will place additional responsibility on people building our products at every level of the company. It will mark a sharper turn toward privacy, on a different scale than anything we’ve done in the past.”

Although it is an incredibly steep fine for Facebook to stomach, we suspect it won’t bother the bean counters than much. Facebook is a money-making machine, and this will soon enough be nothing more than a minor blip. The disruption to its finely-tuned advertising machine will be more of an issue, but it could work in Facebook’s favour.

Facebook is being forced to be more transparent and treat privacy principles with respect. Left to its own fate, the social media giant probably wouldn’t have taken such drastic measures to disrupt itself. However, being forced into these changes could earn Facebook trust and credibility points in the eyes of the consumer.

If Facebook owns this punishment, while shouting and screaming about the changes it is making to become compliant with the order, it could swing public favour back onto its side. Facebook needs to present itself as a privacy conscious organization and this is a perfect opportunity to do so.

Facebook investors brush off leaked $5 billion fine

It has been widely reported that Facebook will receive a record fine for privacy violations, but investors seems strangely pleased about it.

All the usual-suspect business papers seem to have received the leak late last week that the US Federal Trade Commission voted narrowly to fine Facebook $5 billion for data privacy violations related to the Cambridge Analytica thing. The FTC, like the FCC, has five commissioners, three of which are affiliated to the Republican party and two the Democrats. As ever they voted on partisan lines, with the Democrats once more opposing the move.

The FTC has yet to make an official announcement, so we don’t know the stated reasons for the Democrat objections. But since that party seems to have decided it would have won the last general election if it wasn’t for those meddling targeted political ads, it’s safe to assume they think the fine is too lenient.

Just because the Democrats have a vested interest, that doesn’t mean they’re wrong, however. Of course Democrat politicians have criticised the decision, but many more independent commentators have noted that the fine amounts to less than a quarter’s profit for the social media giant. Nilay Patel, Editor in Chief of influential tech site The Verge, seems to speak for many in this tweet.

That Facebook’s share price actually went up after such a big fine initially seems remarkable, but all it really indicates is that Facebook had done a good job of communicating the risk to its investors, so a five bil hit was already priced in. The perfectly legitimate point, however, is that as a punishment one month’s revenue is unlikely to serve as much of a deterrent from future transgressions.

Patel seems very hostile to Facebook, stating in his opinion piece on the matter “Facebook has done nothing but behave badly from inception.” A lot of this bad behaviour consists of exploiting user data, but what is really under attack seems to be Facebook’s core business model and, to some extent, the whole-ad-funded model on which sites like The Verge rely.

Debates need to be had about the way the Internet operates and monetizes itself, but identifying Facebook as a uniquely bad actor when it comes to exploiting user data seems disingenuous. Laws and regulations are struggling to catch up with the business models of internet giants and there are many other questions to be asked about how they operate.

The fact that Facebook’s share price has now largely recovered from the Cambridge Analytica scandal of a year or so ago, as illustrated by the Google Finance screenshot below, indicates that investors consider these issues to be just another business risk, to be weighed up against obscene profits. While we have always considered the scandal to be overblown, it also seems clear that, as a meaningful punishment, even a $5 billion fine is totally inadequate in this case.

Facebook share price July 19

Google is a social media addict and it has fallen off the wagon again

Googlers just don’t know when to give up when it comes to social media as the internet giant attempts to crack the market once again with Shoelace.

It’s been almost six months since the team decided to shut-down Google+ but the search behemoth hasn’t given up just yet. We’ve lost track at how many times Google has attempted to crack this lucrative market, and the latest attempt will put much more of a hyper-local twist on the social networking euphoria.

“Shoelace is a mobile app that helps connect people with shared interests through in person activities,” the team has written in the new platforms FAQs. “It’s great for folks who have recently moved cities or who are looking to meet others who live nearby.”

Coming out of Google’s Area 120, an experimental group within the R&D business, the team will look to create a platform which will focus on uniting people in local communities and neighbourhoods depending on their interests and experiences. It is a slightly different twist to and the Google team will be hoping its fifth time lucky as it attempts to crack the code.

Starting in New York with an invite-only private test, the platform will hope to push events out to users and encourage them to create their own. This might be as simple as checking to see if anyone within a five-minute walk would want to join a kick-about in the park, or it could be to promote a comedy-night in the local pub.

On the commercial side, it makes sense. Should Google be able to scale adoption to a suitable level there will certainly be demand from advertisers, from small pubs hoping to promote bingo to larger music venues hoping to sell tickets. However, if Google can’t convince enough users to engage with the platform, what’s the point.

This is where Google has struggled before; user adoption. Google+, Google Buzz and Google Friend Connect are all examples of platforms which failed because no-one actually used them aside from Google employees. Shoelace is the latest act of defiance from a company which does not know when to quit, and it is presenting a niche idea.

Users will be able to make use of a mapping feature to browse the local area for events, yoga in the park for instance, irrelevant as to whether they are connected to an individual who is attending or not. This is where it is slightly different from other platforms, it is activity driven not connection driven. This might sound like a good USP, but it relies on the assumption users will be OK spending their time with strangers.

Each time Google has attempted to crack the social media world, there seems to be a groan from the cynics and unimaginative who have decided there are enough social media platforms already. Google does not want to give up the potential gold-mine which is social media and the fortunes of competitors demonstrate why.

Alongside Google, Facebook is recognised as a leader in the world of online advertising. The core platform, as well as Instagram and WhatsApp, are making billions for Zucks and his cronies, but they are not alone. Twitter is starting to hoover up profits while Snap is looking like a genuine business and over in China, WeChat is perhaps the most complete offering around, combining social, communication, payments and eCommerce all in one place. You can see why Google has such a fascination with social media.

Trump puts social media on notice after summit

US President Trump has made it clear that he considers social media censorship to be a major concern that may require fresh legislation and regulation.

As we previously reported, this unprecedented convention of social media influencers at the White House that took place yesterday was already causing controversy before it had even taken place. Many commentators were concerned by the apparent fact that most of the people invited were conspicuous Trump supporters.

Judging by the tweet Trump has pinned to the top of his Twitter account, the premise for the social media summit was Trump’s concern about independent voices being censored by the major social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. “Each of you is fulfilling a vital role in our nation,” said Trump. “You’re challenging the media gatekeepers and the corporate censors to bring the facts straight to the American people.

“Together you reach more people than any television broadcast network by far. Free Speech is a bedrock of American life. Our constitutional rights must be fiercely protected and today I’m directing my administration to explore regulatory and legislative solutions to protect free speech and the free speech rights of all Americans. We hope to see transparency, more accountability and more freedom.”

The specifics of what was discussed are thin on the ground right now, but this is a clear shot across the bows of social media companies. Trump clearly believes there is a degree of political censorship on social media and not to his benefit. At the same time he seems to value social media as a counterbalance to the mainstream media, most of which he has been at war with for years. We have seen no public response from any of the social media giants and they would be wise to do so with care. It seems inevitable that there will be increased regulatory oversight of their censorship policies and even new laws on the matter. Bizarrely a Twitter global outage coincided precisely with the the White House gathering and Trump also took the trouble to fire a warning shot to Facebook about its Libra cryptocurrency plans, which you can see below.

Much of the mainstream media seems to have reacted with hostility to the event, putting ‘social media summit’ in scare quotes and characterising the attendees as ‘right wing’. To be fair any media that Trump has dismissed as ‘fake news’ (most of it) did have fairly good reason to feel provoked if you look at the Trump Twitter thread below, send immediately in advance of the summit. Underneath we’ll leave you with the full video of Trump’s speech at the event to make your own mind up about the relevance and utility of the event.

 

Battle lines drawn ahead of White House social media summit

US President Trump has invited a number of social media commentators to a discussion about the current digital environment.

This is being largely interpreted as an anecdotal investigation into the nature of social media censorship, with Trump having repeatedly raised his concerns on the matter. The major social media platforms don’t seem to have been invited, however, instead a selection of independent journalists, commentators and activists will be asked about their online experiences.

The White House hasn’t published a list of attendees, so here’s our own, in no particular order, derived from information already in the public domain. We’ve also included the number of Twitter followers each attendee has to provide some measure of their online influence. The summit takes place tomorrow.

  • Tim Pool – YouTube Journalist – 352k
  • James O’Keefe – Independent Journalist – 548k
  • Ben Garrison – Political Cartoonist – 176k
  • Charlie Kirk – Activist – 1.16m
  • Ali Alexander – Activist – 95k
  • Scott Presler – Activist – 226k
  • Bill Mitchell – Broadcaster – 445k
  • Carpe Donctum – Activist – 122k
  • PragerU – YouTube Commentator – 271k
  • Heritage Foundation – Think Tank – 649k
  • Media Research Center – Media Watchdog – 157k
  • Christian Ziegler – Activist – 3k

It has not gone unnoticed that nearly all of those invited are at the conservative end of the US political spectrum and Trump is known to be concerned that online censorship tends to affect conservatives disproportionately. It’s presumably not a coincidence that most of these conservatives also seem to be committed Trump supporters.

The presence of the two journalists at the top of the list indicates this will be more than just a Trump supporter love-in, however. “This event will bring together digital leaders for a robust conversation on the opportunities and challenges of today’s online environment,” a White House spokesperson is widely reported to have advised.

Pool has probably been chosen due to his high-profile grilling of Twitter on the Joe Rogan podcast, in which he argued some of its rules on speech it permits  are demonstrably biased against conservatives. Similarly O’Keefe’s organisation Project Veritas has recently claimed to have exposed similar political bias at Google.

So it seems clear that at least one of the primary purposes of this summit is to enable the US government to gather evidence of bias in social media censorship. Earlier this year the White House opened a web form inviting people to submit such evidence, so it’s possible this will have influenced who was invited too.

While much commentary has focused on the perceived political agenda of this summit, the absence of not only the big tech companies but big media too indicates another angle. There is a growing body of anecdotal evidence that social media censorship is increasingly biased against independent commentators and thus in favour of corporate, institutional, establishment voices.

Leftist independent commentator David Pakman has alleged in the video below that the YouTube recommendation algorithm has been changed in order to favour corporate over independent media. Most of the independents he cites are also leftist, indicating this isn’t a predominantly political move.

 

It is well documented that YouTube has been anxious about the effect of some of its more contentious contributors on revenues for some time and has implemented broad censorship in an apparent attempt to appease big advertisers. If there is bias in the recommendation algorithm in favour of corporate media it’s probably because advertisers also favour them, but every piece of arbitrary censorship seems to create as many problems as it solves.

Meanwhile, Twitter is where Trump spends much of his time and so is probably the platform he scrutinises most closely. A US appeals court recently ruled that it’s unconstitutional for Trump to block people on Twitter, but this precedent had led to other US politicians who have blocked people on Twitter being sued. Elsewhere Twitter’s recent decision to ban any comment that ‘dehumanizes others on the basis of religion’ seems destined to raise questions about selective enforcement.

Not to be out-done Facebook recently updated its policy regarding ‘violence and incitement’ with the guidance shown in the screenshot below.

Facebook policy screen

This seems to say that it’s OK to advocate high-severity violence (un-defined) against anyone Facebook considers to be a ‘dangerous individual’ or anyone said to be a violent criminal or sexual predator. Since Facebook explicitly identified several individuals as dangerous recently, some of those people have understandably interpreted this move as hostile to them.

That there is a growing body of evidence of a deeply flawed approach by social media companies to policing their platforms is undeniable. To what extent this involves political bias remains unclear, but Trump seems to think it does and, with the next US general election imminent, he seems increasingly disposed to bring the full force of the state against any tech companies deemed to be acting against the public, and his, interest. Those companies will doubtless be following this summit with interest.

We’ll leave you with Pool’s take on the whole thing.