Facebook revenues surge as EU antitrust team revs its engine

Facebook has been on somewhat of a rollercoaster ride over the last 24 hours, revealing another quarter of impressive year-on-year growth, while rumours circulate it could be facing a competition probe.

In Menlo Park, California, CEO Mark Zuckerberg and CFO David Wehner boasted of another quarter which demonstrated the Facebook advertising machine is not slowing down, while on the other side of the Atlantic, Reuters has suggested the European Commission has taken the first steps in an antitrust investigation concerning the Marketplace feature.

What is worth noting is these are only the preliminary steps, and it will be some time before the European Commission decides whether to formally launch a full-investigation. After complaints alleged Facebook was using its market power to create an unfair competitive advantage, the European Commission has sent surveys to various players in the industry to better understand how the competitive landscape has developed.

For Facebook, this should be seen as a worrying sign. Details are thin on the ground for the moment, but it does appear rivals in the ‘classified ads’ segment are suggesting Facebook should not be allowed to diversify. The questionnaire sent to various players in the industry asks how many referrals came from the social media platform.

The question which seems to be asked here is whether it should be allowed to leverage such a massive user-base to steal business of rivals. The issue which Facebook might face is that it doesn’t collect revenue in the same way as those who are challenging the Marketplace.

Traditionally, the ‘seller’ is charged by the media outlet to engage the ‘buyers’ though Facebook has undermined this transaction. There is no charge to sellers to list products, with revenues being driven through sponsored listings and promotions embedded through the search results. Facebook is using its traditional ‘walled garden’ approach, creating an experience for users but charging companies for the pleasure of engagement.

Should the European Commission come to the consumer this is an abuse of market behaviour, rather than the evolution of commerce as we progress towards the digital economy, Facebook’s pursuit of new revenues by expanding the ‘walled garden’ model to new segments could be threatened.

Although revenues are looking healthy for the moment, a glass ceiling will be hit unless Facebook can offer new experiences. Advertising revenues have grown in-line with the userbase of the platforms, though there are only a finite number of users across the world. Facebook has to think of new ways to keep people on the platforms for longer, and for new reasons. Marketplace has been a success, though this is a threat to all diversification not just eCommerce.

From a revenue perspective, these new initiatives do seem to be aiding growth. Total revenues for the three-month period ending September 30 stood at $17.383 billion, a year-on-year increase of 28%, while net income was $6.091 billion, up 19%.

Daily actives users and monthly active users are also on the up, 9% and 8%, with the team now claiming 2.2 billion people now use Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, or Messenger on a daily basis.

Facebook is a business which is certainly facing risks, though the potential to diversify is quite remarkable. New elements such as the Marketplace or the dating features being tested, are re-engaging users at a time when the social media giant seemed to have lost its way. However, this progress could be undermined should European antitrust authorities believe the Facebook disruption is only possible because of an unfair advantage.

US Senators suspect TikTok could be a national security threat

Republican Senator Tom Cotton and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have written to the Intelligence Community to request a national security investigation into social media video app TikTok.

Although TikTok has been paid particular attention in the request, the duo is asking other China-based applications with a significant US presence are also given some consideration. The move could represent an expansion of the aggression towards China and strain trade-talks between the two parties further.

“We write to express our concerns about TikTok, a short-form video application, and the national security risks posed by its growing use in the United States,” the pair said in the letter to Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire.

“TikTok’s terms of service and privacy policies describe how it collects data from its users and their devices, including user content and communications, IP address, location-related data, device identifiers, cookies, metadata, and other sensitive personal information. While the company has stated that TikTok does not operate in China and stores US user data in the US, ByteDance is still required to adhere to the laws of China.”

The comments above pay homage to a Chinese law which requires Chinese companies to comply with requests from the Government and its intelligence agencies. While the law also states Chinese companies can refuse the request if it contradicts with the domestic laws in which the company operates, it is clear the US and others do not believe this clause holds much credibility or weight.

After being launched in 2017 by ByteDance, TikTok has proven to be a very successful additional to the social media scene. The app boasts more than 110 million downloads in the US alone and became the world’s most downloaded app on Apple’s App Store in the first half of 2018.

While this is the first-time politicians have waded into the waters, there has been criticism of TikTok from other avenues. US think tank Peterson Institute for International Economics described TikTok as a ‘Huawei-sized problem’, posing a national security threat to ‘the West’. The thinking here seems to be that the app collects location and biometric data and is unable to deny requests from the Chinese Government.

TikTok has proven to be an immense success in its short life, though the attention from security agencies in the US is an ominous sign. Alongside the shadow of doubt which will be cast on the app in the eyes of US citizens, it is not unfeasible for some sort of restrictions to be placed on the business.

Investors learn Silicon Valley can be volatile as Twitter tanks

Twitter’s share price was slashed by 18% as the market opened this morning, with the social media giant failing to find enough consistency to impress investors.

There was a brief glimmer of hope that Twitter might have been a company people could rely on, but rainclouds have once again emerged to spoil the parade. It certainly isn’t corporate doomsday for Twitter, but the management team will have to start ensuring some consistency if they want to remain in their current employment for the long-term.

Looking at the results, total revenues for the three-month period stood at $824 million, a 9% year-on-year increase, but short of the $876 million analysts estimated. Unfortunately for any optimists, the next quarter isn’t looking much better.

Twitter is forecasting revenue to be between $940 million and $1.01 billion for the next three months, down on the $1.06 billion which was estimated by analysts. Operating income is expected to be in the $130 million and $170 million range.

Although the steep decline in share price has largely levelled off, it does not make for comfortable reading.

The question which remains is what went wrong at Twitter? Looking at the materials presented during the earnings call, the management team is pointing to two areas. Firstly, seasonality. Twitter is suggesting fewer users were using the platform during the summer months than it was expecting, partly due to a lack of major events which were taking place over July and August.

Secondly, bugs in the legacy Mobile Application Promotion (MAP) product impacted the ability to target ads and share data with measurement and ad partners. The team also discovered certain personalization and data settings were not operating as expected. Twitter estimates the product issues reduced year-over-year revenue growth by 3 or more points in Q3.

Although these figures, this quarter and the next three months, are not the best it does not demonstrate the business is fundamentally flawed. This should not be seen as a company which will fall off a cliff, next year could be much more promising.

Firstly, the team is retiring legacy products and introducing new systems constantly, as well as creating more opportunities for those advertisers who are craving video engagement. This is an area which Twitter lags behind other social media platforms, though it could certainly catch-up.

Secondly, when you look at what is going to happen over the next 12 months, it would suggest there will be increased engagement from users and therefore increased opportunity for advertisers. In Europe, you have the UEFA European Championships, in the US, the Presidential Election and in Japan, the Tokyo 2020 Olympics. All of these events present major opportunities for Twitter to engage users.

Looking at user engagement, Twitter has decided to alter the way it reports figures, creating its own metric which will be known as ‘monetizable daily active users’ (mDAU). This could be a useful way to measure engagement, and the explanation below is taken from the letter to shareholders:

“Average mDAU for a period represents the number of mDAU on each day of such period divided by the number of days for such period. Changes in mDAU are a measure of changes in the size of our daily logged in or otherwise authenticated active user base. To calculate the year-over-year change in mDAU, we subtract the average mDAU for the three months ended in the previous year from the average mDAU for the same three months ended in the current year and divide the result by the average mDAU for the three months ended in the previous year.”

In short, it is the number of users which can be served ads each day. Using this metric, Twitter estimates it was able to serve ads to 145 million people each day, on average, which is a 17% increase on the same period of 2018.

The only issue with this metric is that it isn’t the most transparent when it comes to app downloads or concrete figures on daily usage. That said, according to data from Sensor Tower, it is still one of the most popular social media applications worldwide.

These results are not representative of a company which is in trouble, but more demonstrates the volatility of the internet segment. It was a bad three months, but that does not necessatily make Twitter a bad company. There are few companies which emerge from the garages of Silicon Valley which are genuinely reliable, but Twitter is one which will probably get better.

The fundamentals of the business are pretty sound. Assuming the team continue to improve the user experience and fix the bugs in the advertising machine, it will make money. Events across 2019 will attract more people only the platform, especially with social media likely to feature very prominently through the 2020 Presidential Election campaign. Perhaps the market needs to take a reality check on how much money it expects Silicon Valley to hoover up.

Teen-focused social app TikTok bans political advertising

TikTok, a video selfie app popular with teenagers, has sensibly decided political advertising doesn’t fit in with its vibe.

For those unfamiliar with it, TikTok is the latest big thing in social media for kids, teens and, presumably, anyone reluctant to move on from that phase. It enables people to make and publish short video clips of themselves on their phones and even splice in other media. It comes over as the best app yet to facilitate the kind of narcissism enabled by the social media connected camera phone.

TikTok’s most popular users seem to be teens doing musical performances or just generally talking to the camera, so it seems to reside somewhere in between Instagram and YouTube. But just as importantly it’s relatively new and unsullied by grownups, so it could well be increasingly supplanting its competitors in the teen market.

Conscious of its user demographic, TikTok is sensibly careful about its commercial deals. The PR consequences of serving ‘inappropriate’ content to kids would be severe and not worth the revenue. The latest such decision has been made regarding political advertising, which everyone knows is often the most bad-faith, dishonest, unpleasant propaganda and totally incongruous in an environment fills with kids just trying to have a bit of attention-seeking fun.

“…our primary focus is on creating an entertaining, genuine experience for our community,” said Blake Chandlee, VP of Global Business Solutions at TikTok, in a recent blog post. “While we explore ways to provide value to brands, we’re intent on always staying true to why users uniquely love the TikTok platform itself: for the app’s light-hearted and irreverent feeling that makes it such a fun place to spend time.

“In that spirit, we have chosen not to allow political ads on TikTok. Any paid ads that come into the community need to fit the standards for our platform, and the nature of paid political ads is not something we believe fits the TikTok platform experience. To that end, we will not allow paid ads that promote or oppose a candidate, current leader, political party or group, or issue at the federal, state, or local level – including election-related ads, advocacy ads, or issue ads.

It’s hard to argue with TikTok’s rationale here and we wouldn’t be surprised if some of its competitors rue not making such a decision too. The likes of Facebook presumably make loads of money from political advertising, but it comes with all sorts of baggage and scandal. There’s presumably plenty of money to be made from the ten-specific ad industry and TikTok would be wise to stick to that.

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.

Is the consumer the broadcaster of tomorrow?

It’s an interesting thought that might force telcos to rethink how networks are built; will the increasingly influential trend of consumer created content demand greater upload speeds?

Download will of course always be more important than upload, we will always consume more content than we create, but with video messaging, social media and remote working becoming increasingly important aspects of our daily lives it is worth asking whether the upload metric, often ignored by the vast majority, will need some love in the future.

At IBC in Amsterdam this year, the opening keynote was made by YouTube. This is hardly unusual, it is one of the architects of the OTT revolution, though the focus on content creators was much more apparent than in previous years. Cécile Frot-Coutaz, the head of YouTube’s EMEA business, claimed the number of YouTube channels which generate more than $100,000 per annum has increased 30% from 2017 to 2018. The creation of content is becoming increasingly fragmented and straying outside the norms.

And this is not only visible on YouTube. Snapchat is a platform which was primarily designed to offer a platform for consumer content creation. In January, Facebook said there are now 500 million daily active users of the Stories feature on Instagram. Even the way we communicate is becoming more visual, with more consumers opting to video chat on the go.

Nexmo claims a 175% increase in regular live video usage in the last three years, with millennials leading the charge. 25% of young people use video chat on a daily basis. These trends will only increase as more banks, retail and healthcare companies offer live video services, and more of our lives revolve around the smartphone.

The video trends which we have discussed to great lengths over the last few years have primarily focused on the consumer downloading content. It is a one-way street of information, though this is not necessarily going to be the same in years to come. The big question is whether telcos are deploying networks which can compensate for the slight twist of strain. It is a nuance, but often the biggest challenges emerge from nuance.

A few weeks ago, the New England Patriots opened their Super Bowl LIII against the Pittsburgh Steelers. Over the course of this game, 11.58 TB of data traversed across the wifi network. The peak spike for the network was during the Super Bowl LIII banner reveal, with 34,982 concurrent users and 23.24 Gbps network utilisation. The breakdown of download and upload has not been revealed, though the team prepared themselves for an increase in sharing.

“The home opener for a Super Bowl champion is special,” said Fred Kirsch, VP of Content for the New England Patriots and Kraft Sports Productions.

“The team unveils its championship banner and every fan in the stadium wants to capture that moment along with all the other festivities leading up to it. We’ve been lucky enough to have done this before and saw huge spikes in social sharing during this game so our IT department, along with Extreme Networks, made sure we were prepared.

“Man, are we glad we did. At more than one terabyte, social sharing volume during the Super Bowl LIII banner unveiling at Gillette Stadium represents the highest data throughput rate of any moment during any sporting event.”

It might be a trend which irritates some technophobes and traditionalists, but social media is a genre for sharing. It started with the written word, users simply penning their thoughts, moved into sharing of existing content, and now it is increasingly becoming defined by the user creating and sharing their own content.

This creates a new dynamic and a new consideration for those who are deploying networks. Experience is often defined by download speed or latency, however there are will be an increasing number of people who will pay attention to the upload speeds moving forward.

Another interesting element for the upload speed metric will be the fast-developing gaming ecosystem. Download speeds are all well and good, but if you are playing a game which requires you to interact with other players online, uploads speeds are just as important. They do not need to be as high as download speeds, but there do need to be continued improvements to ensure connectivity meets the demands of gaming performance.

For example, Xbox currently suggests a consistent 3 Mbps download and 0.5 Mbps upload speeds for minimally acceptable performance. PS4 suggests 3 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload, as does Nintendo Switch. For PC gaming, download speeds are suggested at 3-6 Mbps, while upload speeds are 0.75–1 Mbps.

These speeds might be achievable in the home, but with the cloud gaming segment growing, these titles can be taken onto multiple screens and onto different networks. Will upload speeds offer a consistent and reliable experience on the mobile networks which are so consistently put under strain.

All of these factors don’t even take into account the increasingly complex or immersive content which will emerge over the next few years. Or the more advanced cameras which smartphone manufacturers are putting on their devices. More tech means more data which needs to be uploaded.

We are all narcissists deep down, craving for attention. Social media is allowing us to do this by sharing video content of our own experiences, and now the networks will have to deliver on the promise.

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.