Tag: Facebook

Categories
Politics

F.T.C. Refiles Fb Antitrust Go well with

F.T.C. Refiles Facebook Antitrust Suit

WASHINGTON – The Federal Trade Commission re-targeted Facebook Thursday, increasing its allegations that the company was a monopoly illegally suppressing competition in an attempt to overcome the skepticism of a federal judge who dismissed the agency’s original case two months ago .

The lawsuit filed on Thursday contains the same overall arguments as the original, namely that Facebook’s Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions were made to create a “ditch” for its monopoly on social networks, and argues that the social network should be disbanded. But the updated lawsuit is nearly twice as long and has more facts and analysis that the agency says it better supports the government’s allegations.

“Facebook lacked the business acumen and technical talent to make the transition to cell phones,” Holly Vedova, the acting director of the agency’s competition bureau, said in a statement. “After failing to compete with new innovators, Facebook illegally bought them or buried them when their popularity became an existential threat.”

Facebook replied, “There was no valid claim that Facebook was a monopoly – and that has not changed. Our Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions were reviewed and approved many years ago, and our platform policies were lawful. “

The agency had to re-file the case after the judge in charge said in June that the government had not provided enough evidence that Facebook was a monopoly on social networks. The judge’s decision, and a similar one he made in one of more than 40 states brought against the company, dealt a staggering blow to regulatory efforts to contain big tech.

His decision represented the first major test for Lina Khan, the FTC chairwoman, who had only been in office for a few days at the time. Ms. Khan represents a wave of new thinking in the industry among administrators and many lawmakers, arguing that the government needs to take far more aggressive measures to curb the power of tech giants like Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple. President Biden has appointed several regulators with similar goals, and lawmakers have proposed updates to antitrust laws to combat the power of tech companies.

Criticism of the first version of the Facebook case by Judge James E. Boasberg of the District Court of the District of Columbia highlighted the major challenges that regulators are facing. Although companies dominate the markets in which they operate – social media, in the case of Facebook – the courts often examine whether prices are rising as a sign of monopoly. The most popular services from Facebook are free.

“Nobody who hears the title of the film ‘The Social Network’ from 2010 wonders which company it is about,” wrote Richter Boasberg. “But whatever it means to the public, ‘monopoly power’ is a federal art term with a precise economic meaning.” He directed the FTC to back up claims that Facebook controlled 60 percent of the market for “personal social networks” and that Competition blocked.

Ms. Khan then faced a choice of how to deal with Judge Boasberg’s decision. One way was to drop the case entirely, while another was to expand it with even broader allegations. Instead, she went more of a middle ground and filed the lawsuit with more detail and a fuller account of the company, and what the agency says is a pattern of anti-competitive behavior since Mark Zuckerberg co-founded it at Harvard in 2004.

The revised lawsuit was approved 3: 2 by the commission, with the commission’s three Democrats voting in favor and the two Republican members opposing.

In the new complaint, the FTC provides more details to support government claims that Facebook has a monopoly on social networks. But in the public version of the lawsuit, many of the statistics have been blacked out because the numbers are proprietary.

The agency said that Facebook – the company’s largest service, known within the company as Facebook Blue – and Instagram are the leading social networks in the US, well ahead of its closest competitor, Snapchat.

The agency refuted Facebook’s claims that it had many competitors in social networking, instant messaging, and entertainment. The agency argued that Facebook’s products are intended for “personal social networks”, which distinguishes them from specialized social networks such as the professional network LinkedIn or the neighborhood site NextDoor. The FTC added that Facebook’s products are also different from messaging services like Signal and iMessage in that users don’t typically use these services to send notes to large groups, nor do they use these services to find contacts.

And the agency said that Facebook was different from Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok in that content on those sites was usually created for the public, rather than targeted at specific people on a social network.

“Today and since 2011, Facebook has a dominant share of the relevant market for US personal social networking services, measured using several metrics: time spent, daily active users and monthly active users,” the agency said in its complaint.

The core argument of the FTC is that Facebook tried to maintain a monopoly over social networks through the acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. Facebook in the new mobile environment, “the agency said in its complaint.

The lawsuit also states that as of 2010, the company stifled competitors like Circle, a social network, and Vine, a short video platform, by pushing new boundaries for external developers whose products are connected to Facebook to work with other social ones Networks added.

“Facebook does not beat competitors by improving its own product, but by imposing anti-competitive restrictions on developers,” the lawsuit said.

Facebook has criticized the arguments as a revisionist story, pointing out that the FTC reviewed the mergers with Instagram and WhatsApp and did not block deals.

“The FTC’s allegations are an attempt to rewrite the antitrust laws and reverse the set expectations for the merger review by telling the business community that no sale is ever final,” Facebook said Thursday.

The company has filed a motion to Ms. Khan to withdraw from the agency’s case, saying her work on a House investigation into platform monopolies shows a bias against the company. The FTC said Thursday it had dismissed that petition, saying that Facebook would receive “adequate constitutional protection from due process” as the case would be heard by a federal judge.

Bill Kovacic, a former FTC chairman, said the agency had done enough to “fight another day”.

“The judge said ‘show your work’ and it appears you have done enough to accommodate that request,” he said.

But he warned that the case would face a long and steep challenge. The FTC has won fewer than 20 of its monopoly cases in the appeals court since it was founded more than 100 years ago, he said.

“Facebook will fight this bitterly,” added Kovacic.

Categories
World News

Taliban content material banned on Fb, Instagram, WhatsApp

Afghan war has entered 'deadlier and more destructive phase,' UN says

Taliban fighters with a vehicle on a highway in Afghanistan.

Saibal Das | The India Today Group | Getty Images

Facebook and TikTok said Tuesday that they will not lift the ban on content promoting the Taliban after the group takes control of Afghanistan.

The social media giants told CNBC that they consider the Afghan group, which has been using social media platforms to get their messages across for years, as a terrorist organization.

Facebook said it has a dedicated team of content moderators that monitor and remove posts, pictures, videos and other Taliban-related content. It is unclear how many people are on the team.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid criticized Facebook for censorship at a public press conference in the capital Kabul on Tuesday, claiming the group’s freedom of expression was stifled by the tech giant’s ban. Facebook reportedly removed several user accounts linked to Mujahid this week after they were reported to the company by New York Times journalists.

Afghanistan fell victim to the Islamic militant group over the weekend when they captured Kabul, including the presidential palace. After President Joe Biden’s decision in April to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan, the Taliban made breathtaking strides on the battlefield – and almost the entire nation is now under insurgent control.

A Facebook spokesman told CNBC: “The Taliban are sanctioned as a terrorist organization under US law and we have banned them from our services under our dangerous organization policy.”

The Taliban have been banned from Facebook for several years, the spokesman said.

Facebook said it means removing accounts held by or on behalf of the Taliban, as well as those that praise, support and represent them.

“We also have a dedicated team of Afghanistan experts who are native Dari and Pashto speakers and who know the local context and who help us to identify and raise awareness of emerging problems on the platform,” said the Facebook spokesman.

Facebook said it doesn’t decide whether to recognize national governments. Instead, it follows the “authority of the international community”.

TikTok declined to issue a statement, but told CNBC that it has classified the Taliban as a terrorist organization and is continuing to remove content that it praises, glorifies, or endorses.

WhatsApp dilemma?

The ban on Facebook also applies to Instagram and WhatsApp, but reports suggest that the Taliban are still using WhatsApp to communicate. The chat platform is end-to-end encrypted, which means that Facebook cannot see what people are sharing on it.

“As a private messaging service, however, we do not have access to the content of people’s personal chats.

A Facebook spokesperson told CNBC that WhatsApp uses AI software to analyze unencrypted group information including names, profile photos and group descriptions to meet legal obligations.

Alphabet-owned YouTube said its community guidelines apply to everyone equally and that it enforces its guidelines on the content and the context in which it is presented. The company said it allows content that has sufficient educational, documentary, scientific, and artistic context.

“The situation in Afghanistan is developing rapidly,” a Twitter spokesman told CNBC. “We’re also watching people across the country use Twitter to seek help and advice. Twitter’s top priority is keeping people safe and we’re staying vigilant.”

“We will continue to proactively enforce our rules and review content that could violate Twitter rules, particularly the glorification of violence, platform manipulation and spam,” added the spokesman.

Rasmus Nielsen, professor of political communication at Oxford University, told CNBC it was important that social media companies act consistently in crisis situations.

“Every time someone is banned, there is a risk that they are only using the platform for legitimate purposes,” he said.

“Given the disagreement over terms such as ‘terrorism’ and who can identify individuals and groups as such, civil society groups and activists will want clarity on the nature and extent of working with governments on these decisions,” added Nielsen. “And many users will be reassured that any technology used for enforcement will protect their privacy.”

Categories
Health

White Home Dispute Exposes Fb Blind Spot on Misinformation

White House Dispute Exposes Facebook Blind Spot on Misinformation

“The suggestion that we did not allocate resources to combat Covid misinformation and aid vaccine roll-out is simply not supported by the facts,” said Dani Lever, a Facebook spokeswoman. “With no standard definition of vaccine misinformation and with both false and true content (often shared by mainstream media) that may discourage vaccine adoption, we focus on the results – we measure whether people using Facebook have Covid Accept -19 vaccines. ”

Facebook executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, have said the company has pledged to remove Covid-19 misinformation since the beginning of the pandemic. The company said it has removed over 18 million Covid-19 misinformation since the pandemic began.

Experts investigating disinformation said the number of parts removed from Facebook wasn’t as revealing, how many were uploaded to the site, or what groups and pages people saw misinformation spreading.

“You have to open the black box that represents your content ranking and content amplification architecture. Take that black box and open it for review by independent researchers and the government, ”said Imran Ahmed, executive director of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a nonprofit dedicated to combating disinformation. “We don’t know how many Americans have been infected with misinformation.”

Ahmed’s group, using publicly available data from CrowdTangle, a program owned by Facebook, found that 12 people were responsible for 65 percent of the Covid-19 misinformation on Facebook. The White House, including Mr Biden, repeated that number over the past week. Facebook says it disagrees with the characterization of the “dozen of disinformation,” adding that some of their pages and accounts have been removed while others stop posting content that violates Facebook rules.

Renée DiResta, a disinformation researcher at Stanford Internet Observatory, urged Facebook to post more detailed data that would allow experts to understand how false claims about the vaccine affect certain communities in the country. The information known as “prevalence data” essentially examines how widespread a narrative is, e.g. B. What percentage of the people in a community see them on duty.

“The reason more detailed prevalence data is needed is because false claims are not spread equally among all audiences,” said Ms. DiResta. “To effectively counter certain false claims that communities see, civil society organizations and researchers need a better understanding of what is happening in these groups.”

Categories
Politics

Fb To Biden: ‘We Aren’t The Cause Vaccination Objective Was Missed’

Facebook To Biden: 'We Aren't The Reason Vaccination Goal Was Missed'

WASHINGTON – Facebook and the Biden government had an increasingly vicious back and forth over the weekend after the government condemned the social media giant for spreading misinformation about the Covid-19 vaccines.

On Sunday, General Surgeon Vivek Murthy reiterated warnings that false stories about the vaccines had become a dangerous health hazard. “These platforms need to recognize that they have played an important role in increasing the speed and extent with which misinformation spreads,” Murthy said on CNN on Sunday.

In a blog post on Saturday, Facebook asked the administration to stop “pointing the finger” and set out what it had done to encourage users to vaccinate. The social network also described how it cracked down on lies about the vaccines, which officials said led to people refusing to be vaccinated.

“The Biden administration has chosen to blame a handful of American social media companies,” said Guy Rosen, Facebook’s vice president of integrity, in the post. “The fact is that the adoption of vaccines by Facebook users in the US has increased.”

Mr Rosen added that the company’s data showed that 85 percent of its users in the United States were or were about to be vaccinated against the coronavirus. While President Biden’s goal was to have 70 percent of Americans vaccinated by July 4th, which the White House missed, “Facebook isn’t the reason it missed that target,” Rosen said.

Facebook’s response followed a firm condemnation of the company by Mr Biden. When asked on Friday about the role of social media in influencing vaccinations, Mr Biden stated in unusually strong language that the platforms “kill people”.

“Look,” he added, “the only pandemic we have is that of the unvaccinated, and that – and they kill people.”

Other White House officials have also increasingly commented on how social media has stepped up vaccine flights.

On Thursday, Mr Murthy accused social media companies of not doing enough to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation about health, calling it a national health crisis that fueled refusal to vaccinate among Americans. On Friday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki also called for misinformation “that is causing people not to take the vaccine and people to die from it.” She said the White House was responsible for bringing up the issue.

The White House declined to comment on Facebook’s blog post on Saturday.

On Sunday morning, Mr Murthy also responded to allegations made by a Facebook official who spoke anonymously to CNN, saying the government was looking for “scapegoats for missing its vaccination targets.”

Updated

July 18, 2021, 12:38 p.m. ET

The company representative told CNN before Mr Murthy’s appearance on the news network that Mr Murthy had “praised our work” in private conversations while he had publicly criticized the company.

Mr. Murthy disproved the characterization.

“I’ve been very consistent in what I’ve been saying to tech companies,” Murthy said Sunday morning on CNN. “If we see good steps, we should acknowledge them,” he said, adding, “But I also said that it was not enough. We are still seeing an increase in misinformation on the Internet. “

Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites have long struggled with their role as platforms for speech while protecting their users from disinformation campaigns such as Russian efforts to influence presidential elections or false statements about the pandemic.

In the past few months, Facebook has taken steps against anti-vaccination advertisements and misrepresentation about the vaccines. In October, it announced that it would no longer allow ads against vaccinations on its platform. In February, the company went ahead and said it would remove false claims posts about vaccines, including claims that vaccines cause autism or that it is safer for people to contract the coronavirus than receiving the vaccinations.

But online misinformation about the vaccines has not been eradicated. Lies have been spread that vaccines can alter DNA or that vaccines won’t work.

On Saturday, Mr Rosen said in the blog post that American Facebook users’ reluctance to take vaccines had decreased by 50 percent since April and vaccine acceptance had increased by 10 to 15 percentage points, or from 70 percent to over 80 percent.

“Although social media plays an important role in society, it is clear that we need a society-wide approach to end this pandemic,” said Rosen. “And facts – not allegations – should help support this effort.”

The White House’s frustration with Facebook has increased over several months, said those knowledgeable about the matter. While the Biden government asked Facebook to share information about the spread of misinformation on the social network, the company refused to cooperate, the people said.

On Friday, White House digital director Robert Flaherty said in a tweet: “I think the question remains simple: How many people have seen misinformation about Covid vaccines on Facebook?”

Categories
Health

Physician agrees with Biden that Fb is ‘killing folks’ with Covid misinformation

Not prudent to deploy vaccine boosters at this point: Ex-FDA director

Dr. Nahid Bhadelia, founding director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at Boston University, told CNBC that from a medical standpoint, she agrees with President Joe Biden’s claim that platforms like Facebook are killing people by putting misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines in theirs Allow services.

“I think social media plays a huge role in spreading misinformation that leads people not to take the vaccine, which is killing them,” said Bhadelia. “It’s the honest truth. Covid is a vaccine-preventable disease at the moment.”

Bhadelia cited results from the Kaiser Family Fund poll, which found that 54% of Americans either believe or cannot tell whether a common Covid vaccine myth is fact or fiction.

The US is struggling with a drop in vaccination rates and an increase in infections. All 50 states have reported spikes in Covid cases over the past week, according to data from Johns Hopkins University. The US has an average of more than 26,000 new cases a day, and that’s the highest number in two months, according to Johns Hopkins.

Bhadelia told CNBC The News with Shepard Smith that she believes social media companies can do a lot more to stop the spread of disinformation.

“You have to invest a lot more resources and improve your balance to clear that information faster, invest more resources in changing your matrix, because right now what is on top of your page is not right, but what it is is popular, “said Bhadelia, a medical worker for NBC News.

She also suggested that social media companies should partner with public health officials more to get the right information out to the people.

Facebook spoke out against the White House claims.

“We will not be distracted by allegations that are not supported by the facts,” said a spokesman. “The fact is, more than 2 billion people have viewed authoritative information about COVID-19 and vaccines on Facebook, more than any other place on the internet. More than 3.3 million Americans have also used our vaccine finder tool to find out where and how to get a vaccine. The facts show that Facebook helps save lives. Point.”

Categories
Politics

Fb chief Mark Zuckerberg odd Fourth of July Instagram put up

Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg odd Fourth of July Instagram post

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg rides an electric surfboard holding the American flag. July 4, 2021.

Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram

Make America Weird Again.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Sunday posted a wacky American-flag waving, surfboard-riding video on Instagram to celebrate Independence Day.

“Happy July 4th!” Zuckerberg wrote on the post of the video.

It features him deftly skimming along atop an electric foil surfboard on an idyllic-looking lake, toting the Stars and Stripes as John Denver’s anthem to West Virginia, “Take Me Home, Country Roads” plays as a soundtrack.

Facebook, which the 37-year-old mega-billionaire co-founded, owns Instagram.

“This is some meme materials,” one follower of “Zuck” wrote in response to the post.

“Fantastic!” another follower wrote.

A third wrote, “When you get your antitrust lawsuit thrown about by a judge. Let’s GOOOOO Zuck!

CNBC Politics

Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

Categories
Politics

Fb Says Trump’s Ban Will Final at Least 2 Years

Facebook Says Trump's Ban Will Last at Least 2 Years

SAN FRANCISCO — Facebook said on Friday that Donald J. Trump’s suspension from the service would last at least two years, clarifying a timeline on the ban that the company put in place in January.

The company said Mr. Trump would be eligible for reinstatement in January 2023, when it will then look to experts to decide “whether the risk to public safety has receded,” Facebook said. The company barred the former president from the service after comments he made about the Capitol riots.

“Given the gravity of the circumstances that led to Mr. Trump’s suspension,” Nick Clegg, vice president of global affairs at Facebook, wrote in a company blog post, “we believe his actions constituted a severe violation of our rules which merit the highest penalty available under the new enforcement protocols.”

If reinstated, Mr. Trump will be subject to a set of “rapidly escalating sanctions” if he committed further violations, up to and including the permanent suspension of his account.

Categories
Business

Epic trial reveals Apple negotiations with Netflix, Fb, Microsoft

Epic trial reveals Apple negotiations with Netflix, Facebook, Microsoft

Apple und Epic Games stehen sich seit Jahren in einem der am genauesten beobachteten Kartellverfahren in der Technologiebranche gegenüber.

Epic Games hat diese Woche seinen Fall vorgestellt, und Apple wird seinen Fall in den kommenden Wochen vorstellen. Schließlich wird Richterin Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers eine Entscheidung treffen, ob Apple Epic erlauben muss, einen eigenen App Store auf iPhones zu installieren und die 30% App Store-Gebühr von Apple zu umgehen.

Als Teil von Epics Argument, dass Apples App Store wettbewerbswidrig ist, hat die Studie viele interne Apple-Überlegungen zu Verhandlungen ergeben – Gerichtsausstellungen, einschließlich E-Mail-Threads füllen Dokumente im Wert von 60 Ordnern – mit einigen seiner wichtigsten Partner.

Die Dokumente zeichnen ein Porträt eines Unternehmens, das sich seiner umsatzstärksten und wichtigsten Apps sehr bewusst ist und regelmäßig Verhandlungen mit Unternehmen wie Netflix, Microsoft, Facebook und sogar Epic Games selbst führt, deren Fortnite-Spiel eine der Top-Apps bei Apple war Appstore.

Während die E-Mails nicht zeigen, dass das App Store-Team Kompromisse bei den Apple-Regeln bezüglich der zulässigen Inhalte im Store eingeht, haben sie andere Zugeständnisse gemacht, darunter die Platzierung auf der Titelseite im App Store, Koordination und Werbung durch Apple-Produkteinführungen sowie Zugriff auf exklusive Programme Funktionen und Versuche, leitende Angestellte einzuschleifen, um Kompromisse zu finden.

Apple hat Netflix Kompromisse angeboten

Im Februar 2018 traf sich ein Apple-Manager mit Mitarbeitern von Netflix und schrieb anschließend eine E-Mail an seine Kollegen, in der er das Meeting zusammenfasste.

Er schrieb, dass der Video-Streamer besorgt über die “freiwillige Abwanderung” oder die Anzahl der Netflix-Abonnenten war, die über Apple zahlten und beschlossen, das Abonnement einzustellen. Infolgedessen wollte Netflix in einigen kleinen Märkten einen Test durchführen, um zu sehen, was passieren würde, wenn keine In-App-Käufe mehr akzeptiert würden, von denen Apple eine Kürzung um 15% bis 30% vornimmt.

Der Apple-Manager schrieb, dass der geplante Test von Netflix Fragen für Apple aufwirft, einschließlich der Frage, ob “Strafmaßnahmen” ergriffen werden sollen, z. B. die Einstellung der Werbung für Netflix im App Store oder die Eskalation von Bedenken gegenüber Netflix-Führungskräften.

Die E-Mail löste bei Apple-Managern ein Durcheinander aus. Zu dieser Zeit gehörte Netflix zu den erfolgreichsten Apps im App Store von Apple.

Pete Distad, ein Apple-Vizepräsident, der sich auf das Streaming-Geschäft von Apple konzentrierte, entsandte Mitarbeiter, um mit seinem früheren Arbeitgeber Hulu über ähnliche Themen zu sprechen. Ein Apple-Mitarbeiter sagte, dass Eddy Cue, Apples Chef für Onlinedienste, mit Reed Hastings, CEO von Netflix, sprechen wollte.

In den nächsten zwei Monaten trafen sich Apple-Mitarbeiter mit Netflix, um über den Test zu sprechen, und aktualisierten ihre Vorgesetzten über die Pläne von Netflix, als Apple laut E-Mails versuchte, ein Executive Meeting zu planen.

Bis Juli 2018 hatten Apple-Mitarbeiter eine Präsentation zum Netflix-Problem erstellt. Das Dia-Deck enthielt “Pie in the Sky-Ideen”, die nicht genehmigt worden waren, warnte ein Apple-Mitarbeiter.

Auf dem Dia-Deck stand, dass Apple Netflix bereits “benutzerdefinierte APIs” oder nicht öffentliche Software angeboten hatte, mit denen es Systeme erstellen konnte, mit denen Apple-Abonnements geändert, kostenlose Testversionen durchgeführt oder Daten für die automatische Verlängerung verlängert werden konnten. Es würde auch Funktionen erstellen, die direkt auf Netflix-Anforderungen basieren.

Es wurde auch auf die Leistungsfähigkeit von Apples App Store-Inhalten hingewiesen, die Downloads fördern können. Es führte seine eigenen Tests durch und stellte fest, dass die Download-Conversions bei der Werbung für Netflix in seiner App Store-App um 6% bis 7% zunahmen. Netflix erhielt mehr App Store-Placements als jeder andere Partner und erzielte 330.000 Downloads oder eine Conversion von 2% Bewertung. Apple berechnet keine Gebühren für “redaktionelle” Platzierungen von App Store-Inhalten.

Schließlich schlug das Dia-Deck vor, dass Apple seine Partnerschaft mit Netflix vertiefen könnte, einschließlich der Verwendung der von Apple gesammelten Netflix-Provision, um App Store-Suchanzeigen zu kaufen, um Downloads zu fördern oder Netflix zusammen mit Apple-Diensten zu bündeln. Eine andere Möglichkeit bestand darin, Netflix “Vorteile für Videopartnerprogramme” anzubieten, was einem Vertrag ähnelt, den Apple mit Amazon Prime Video abgeschlossen hat, mit dem Kunden direkt belastet werden können.

Trotz der offensichtlichen Bemühungen von Apple hat Netflix im Dezember 2018 neue Abonnements über Apple eingestellt, um die Kürzung von In-App-Käufen durch Apple zu umgehen. Die Netflix iPhone-App öffnet derzeit die Meldung: “Sie können sich in der App nicht für Netflix anmelden. Wir wissen, dass dies problematisch ist.”

Facebook und Apple hatten eine Geschichte von Konflikten

Facebook hatte einen langen Konflikt mit Apple wegen seines Wunsches, soziale Spiele in seine Apps aufzunehmen, was im Widerspruch zu den Apple-Regeln für das Vorhandensein von Sammlungen von Apps oder Software in Apps steht. Im vergangenen Jahr hat Facebook seine Kritik verstärkt und erklärt, dass Apple seine Kontrolle über seine Plattform nutzt, um Entwicklern und Verbrauchern Schaden zuzufügen.

In einem E-Mail-Austausch von 2011, der im Rahmen der Testversion in einem Dokumenten-Repository veröffentlicht und anschließend entfernt wurde, diskutierten Apple-Führungskräfte, darunter der frühere CEO Steve Jobs, einen Kompromiss in Bezug auf Spiele in der Facebook-iPad-App, nachdem der frühere Software-Chef Scott Forstall mit dem Facebook-CEO Mark Zuckerberg gesprochen hatte.

Die Dokumente enthalten nicht die Bedingungen des Kompromisses. Als die Facebook iPad-App im Jahr 2011 herauskam, enthielt sie webbasierte Spiele wie Farmville, mit denen Apples Regel gegen App Stores im App Store verstoßen wurde. IPhone- und iPad-Nutzer konnten jedoch nicht mit der Spielewährung Credits von Facebook bezahlen.

Interne Facebook-Beratungen, die im Rahmen der Epic Games-Studie veröffentlicht wurden, zeigen, wie sich diese Verhandlungen in den Jahren seitdem auf die Unternehmensbeziehungen ausgewirkt haben.

In einer E-Mail aus dem Jahr 2017, die als Teil von Gerichtsdokumenten eingereicht wurde, fügte ein Facebook-Mitarbeiter vor dem Treffen eines Facebook-Geschäftsführers mit Apple auf der jährlichen Geschäftskonferenz von Allen and Company in Sun Valley eine kurze Analyse hinzu.

Bis dahin wollte Facebook Klarheit oder Anleitung zur Entwicklung von “Sofortspielen” in seiner Facebook Messenger-App, die durch den Überprüfungsprozess von Apple verlangsamt wurde. Der Kompromiss von 2011 war jedoch immer noch groß.

“Ende 2016 genehmigte Apple Facebook, die Einführung von ‘Instant Games’ in Messenger und der FB Blue App voranzutreiben”, schrieb der Facebook-Mitarbeiter. “”[Former Apple marketing chief] Phil Schiller zog eine E-Mail aus dem Jahr 2011 heraus, in der an eine Vereinbarung erinnert wurde, die wir getroffen haben, damit FB HMTL5-Spiele streamen kann, solange wir keinen App Store erstellen oder In-App-Zahlungen tätigen. “

Das Ergebnis des Sun Valley-Treffens ist aus Gerichtsdokumenten nicht ersichtlich, aber bis 2020 kämpfte Facebook erneut mit dem Überprüfungsprozess von Apple um eine eigenständige Gaming-App. Nach einer Ablehnung von Apple im März 2020 beschrieb ein Facebook-Mitarbeiter in E-Mails Frustration über den Prozess und sagte, dass es “eine Überraschung ist, da FB Gaming keine eindeutige Funktionalität enthält, die noch nicht auf der Registerkarte” Spiele “in der Facebook-App genehmigt wurde . “

Laut den E-Mails musste Facebook den gleichen Berufungsprozess wie jeder andere Entwickler durchlaufen, einschließlich der Berufung an eine Apple-Stelle namens App Review Board. Der Social-Media-Riese konnte jedoch Anrufe mit Trystan Kosmynka und Bill Havlicek, den Leitern der Apple-Überprüfungsgruppe, und später mit Ron Okamoto, dem für die Gruppe zuständigen Vizepräsidenten, planen, bevor er dieses Jahr in den Ruhestand ging.

Als Facebook Gaming Ende 2020 veröffentlicht wurde, war klar, dass Facebook und Apple keinen Kompromiss finden konnten.

“Leider mussten wir die Gameplay-Funktionen vollständig entfernen, um die Genehmigung von Apple für die eigenständige Facebook-Gaming-App zu erhalten. Dies bedeutet, dass iOS-Benutzer eine schlechtere Erfahrung als Android-Benutzer haben”, sagte Sheryl Sandberg, COO von Facebook, in einer damaligen Erklärung.

Microsoft verhandelte 2012 über Office für iPad

Ein E-Mail-Thread aus dem Jahr 2012 zeigt, dass Top-Führungskräfte von Apple, darunter Schiller und Cue, über den bevorstehenden Start von Microsoft Office für iPhones und iPads durch Microsoft informiert wurden.

Okamoto, der zu dieser Zeit Apple VP war und sich auf Entwicklerbeziehungen konzentrierte, traf sich mit Microsoft. In seiner E-Mail an seine Chefs heißt es, Apple wolle wissen, ob Microsoft an der jährlichen Entwicklerkonferenz WWDC teilnehmen könne. (Microsoft lehnte ab und sagte, es sei noch nicht bereit, über seine Pläne zu sprechen.)

Microsoft hatte zwei Anfragen. Zunächst wollte Apple, dass Benutzer für In-App-Käufe auf die Microsoft-Website umgeleitet werden. Microsoft würde die Zahlung abwickeln und die 30% ige Gebühr von Apple für In-App-Käufe umgehen.

Zweitens wollten sie, dass Schiller und Cue sich mit Microsoft-Kollegen treffen, insbesondere mit Kirk Koenigsbauer, der derzeit Senior Vice President von Microsoft ist.

Schiller stimmte dem Treffen zu, goss aber in einer E-Mail kaltes Wasser auf den Zahlungsvorschlag von Microsoft. “Wir führen den Laden, wir sammeln die Einnahmen.”

Microsoft veröffentlichte Office erst 2014 für das iPad, nachdem Satya Nadella Steve Ballmer als CEO des Unternehmens übernommen hatte.

Epische Spiele und Marshmello

Bevor Apple Epics Shooter-Spiel Fortnite aus dem App Store entfernte, war es eine der erfolgreichsten Apps im Store, und Mitarbeiter beider Unternehmen arbeiteten daran, Cross-Promotion-Deals zu besiegeln, wie Gerichtsakten belegen.

Epic lieferte Demos bei Apple-Startveranstaltungen, in denen neue Technologien, Zitate zu Apple-Spielefunktionen und Heads-up zu den großen Veranstaltungen und Werbeaktionen in Fortnite vorgestellt wurden.

Im Gegenzug wurde Epic Games über den Apple App Store sowie über andere Apple Media-Eigenschaften wie Apple Music für Fortnite beworben. Es nutzte auch seine Beziehung zu Apple-Mitarbeitern, um eine Fortnite-Abzocke aus dem App Store zu starten.

Eine E-Mail von Epic Games 2019 enthält Mitarbeiter, die über ein Konzert 2019 im Fortnite-Spiel mit Marshmello, einem DJ, sprechen.

Apple wollte eine Partnerschaft eingehen – aber erst nachdem sichergestellt wurde, dass Marshmellos Mix keine Schimpfwörter enthält -, heißt es in den E-Mails und enthielt einen Vorschlag für eine Cross-Promotion mit Apples Marke Apple Music, einschließlich Werbetafeln in New York und Los Angeles, digitaler Werbung und Posts von Apples Social-Media-Konten.

Apple benötigte die Erlaubnis, den Namen Fortnite in seinen Apple Music-Wiedergabelisten und -Anzeigen zu verwenden, aber die Mitarbeiter von Epic waffelten. Man befürchtete, Apple würde nach Epic “kooptieren und zeichnen”.

Ein anderer Mitarbeiter wies auf die Vorteile von Epic Games hin, darunter, dass das Unternehmen wollte, dass Apple künftige Fortnite-Events sponsert, und dass sie eine große Chance für das Wachstum des Spiels bei den iPhone-Spielern sahen.

“Apple-Werbespots sind immer geschmackvoll und cool”, schrieb ein Mitarbeiter von Epic. “Sie würden damit nichts anfangen.”

Apple schien besonders daran interessiert zu sein, dass Epic Games ARKit unterstützt, eine Software für iPhones, die ihre 3D-Sensorhardware verwendet, um die reale Welt und Computergrafiken zu integrieren.

In epischen E-Mails aus dem Jahr 2017 wurde ein Treffen mit Apple besprochen, um die Gesichtsverfolgung des iPhones zu integrieren und animierte Charaktere zu erstellen.

Die Partnerschaft zwischen den beiden Unternehmen wurde bis 2020 verlängert. Kurz nachdem Apple ein High-End-iPad-Modell mit einem neuen 3D-Scanner herausgebracht hatte, bot ein Apple-Mitarbeiter Epic Games ein Treffen mit dem ARKit-Team von Apple an, das die Software dafür herstellte, und ließ später die Möglichkeit aufkommen Förderung auf seiner jährlichen Entwicklerkonferenz.

Im Jahr 2018, nachdem Fortnite veröffentlicht worden war und an Dynamik gewonnen hatte, antwortete Epic Games-Mitbegründer Mark Rein auf eine E-Mail und fragte: “[I]Können wir irgendetwas tun, damit Apple in erheblichem Maße hinter uns bleibt? “

Rein sagte, er habe bereits ein Treffen mit Apple im Februar geplant und Apple sei “SEHR” daran interessiert, die Smartphone-Version von Fortnite zu sehen.

Apple hatte Fortnite seit 2015 beworben, als auf der WWDC-Konferenz von Apple eine frühe Version des Spiels auf der Bühne auf einem Mac demonstriert wurde.

Die Beziehung zwischen den beiden Unternehmen bedeutete jedoch nicht, dass die Verhandlungen jemals das Niveau von Apple-CEO Tim Cook erreichten. Im Jahr 2015, Wochen nach der Präsentation von Epic Games auf einer Apple-Veranstaltung, schickte Tim Sweeney, CEO von Epic Games, eine E-Mail an Cook, in der er sich über die Regeln des App Store beschwerte.

Cook fragte seine Leutnants: “Ist das der Typ, der bei einer unserer Proben war?”

Categories
Business

Trump Ban From Fb Upheld by Oversight Board

Trump Ban From Facebook Upheld by Oversight Board

SAN FRANCISCO – A Facebook-appointed panel of journalists, activists and lawyers confirmed the social network’s ban on former President Donald J. Trump on Wednesday, ending any immediate return of Mr Trump to mainstream social media and renewing one Debate on the technical power of the Internet speech.

Facebook’s oversight board, which acts as the court for the company’s substantive decisions, ruled that the social network rightly banned Mr. Trump after the Washington uprising in January, saying that he had “created an environment in which to serious risk of violence is possible. ” The panel said the persistent risk “justified” the move.

The board has also thrown the case back on Facebook and its top executives. An indefinite suspension was “not appropriate” as it was not a punishment set out in Facebook’s policies and the company should apply a standard punishment such as a temporary suspension or a permanent ban. The board gave Facebook six months to make a final decision on Mr Trump’s account status.

“Our only job is to hold this extremely powerful organization, Facebook. accountable, ”Michael McConnell, co-chair of the Oversight Board, told reporters on a call. Mr. Trump’s ban “did not meet these standards,” he said.

The decision makes it difficult for Mr Trump to re-enter mainstream social media, a major source of clout that he used during his years in the White House to directly appease his tens of millions of followers, take advantage of their abuses, set guidelines and criticize opponents. Twitter and YouTube also cut Mr Trump off after the Capitol uprising in January, saying the risk and potential for violence he created was too great.

While Mr Trump’s Facebook account remains banned, he may be able to return to the social network once the company reviews its actions. Mr Trump still has a tremendous influence on Republicans, and his false claims of a stolen election continue to be mirrored. On Wednesday, House Republican leaders moved to expel Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney for criticizing Mr. Trump and his election lies.

In a statement, Mr. Trump did not directly address the board’s decision. But he slammed Facebook, Google, and Twitter – some of which were important fundraising platforms for him – and called them corrupt.

“The President of the United States has been denied freedom of speech because radical left-wing madmen are afraid of the truth,” he said.

Mr. Trump’s continued Facebook suspension gave new fuel to the platforms for Republicans who have accused social media companies of suppressing conservative voices. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, testified several times in Congress whether the social network had shown bias towards conservative political views. He denied it.

Senator Marsha Blackburn, Republican from Tennessee, said the decision was made by the Facebook board “extremely disappointing ”and it was“ clear that Mark Zuckerberg sees himself as the arbiter of freedom of speech ”. And Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan said Facebook, which is under antitrust scrutiny, should be disbanded.

Democrats were unhappy too. Frank Pallone, chairman of the House’s Energy and Trade Committee, tweeted, “Donald Trump has played a huge role in spreading disinformation on Facebook, but whether he’s on the platform or not, Facebook and other social media platforms do too The same business model will find ways to highlight divisive content in order to generate ad revenue. “

The decision underscored the power of tech companies to determine who can say what online. While Mr. Zuckerberg has said that he doesn’t want his company to be “the arbiter of truth” in social discourse, Facebook has become increasingly active on the type of content it allows. To prevent the spread of misinformation, the company has been cracking down on QAnon conspiracy theories, polling loopholes, and anti-vaccination content for the past few months before Trump’s lockdown in January.

“This case has dramatic implications for the future of online language as the public and other platforms examine how the Board of Directors will deal with a difficult controversy that will recur around the world,” said Nate Persily, professor at Stanford University Law School .

He added, “President Trump has moved the envelope beyond the allowable language on these platforms and set the outer boundaries so that if you are not willing to pursue it, you will allow a great deal of incitement and hate speech and disinformation online others will spread. “

In a statement, Facebook said it was “pleased” that the board recognized that Mr Trump’s January lockdown was warranted. It said it would examine the judgment and “determine an act that is clear and proportionate”.

The case of Mr Trump is the most prominent one that the Facebook Oversight Board, conceived in 2018, has dealt with. The board, made up of 20 journalists, activists and former politicians, reviews and evaluates the company’s most controversial decisions regarding the moderation of content. Mr. Zuckerberg has repeatedly referred to it as the “Facebook Supreme Court”.

Although positioned as independent, the body was founded and funded by Facebook and has no legal or enforcement agency. Critics were skeptical of the board’s autonomy, saying it gave Facebook the ability to make tough decisions.

Each of his cases is decided by a five-person panel chosen from the 20 members of the Board of Directors, one of whom must be from the country from which the case originates. The committee examines the comments on the case and makes recommendations to the entire board, which decides with a majority of votes. After a decision is made, Facebook has seven days to respond to the board’s decision.

Since the board began issuing decisions in January, it has overturned Facebook’s decisions in four of the five cases it examined. In one case, the board asked Facebook to restore a post in which Joseph Goebbels, the Nazis’ head of propaganda, made a reference to the Trump presidency. Facebook had previously removed the post for “promoting dangerous people,” but it was in line with the board’s decision.

In another case, the board ruled that Facebook had gone too far by removing a post from a French user who falsely suggested that the drug hydroxychloroquine could be used to cure Covid-19. Facebook restored the post but also said it would continue to remove the wrong information, as directed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization.

In Trump’s case, Facebook also asked the board for recommendations on how to deal with the accounts of political leaders. On Wednesday, the board suggested that the company publicly explain when it would apply special rules for influential people, although it should set specific deadlines in doing so. The board also said Facebook should clarify its strike and punishment process and develop and publish a policy regulating responses to crises or novel situations in which its regular processes would not prevent impending harm.

“Facebook was clearly abused by influential users,” said Helle Thorning-Schmidt, co-chair of the Oversight Board.

Facebook doesn’t have to accept these recommendations, but has said it will “examine them carefully”.

For Mr. Trump, Facebook has long been a place to gather his digital base and support other Republicans. He was followed by more than 32 million people on Facebook, although this was far fewer than the 88 million+ followers he had on Twitter.

Over the years, Mr. Trump and Mr. Zuckerberg had an irritable relationship. Mr Trump regularly attacked Silicon Valley executives for suppressing conservative language. He also threatened to revoke Section 230, a legal shield protecting companies like Facebook from liability for what users post.

Mr Zuckerberg on occasion criticized some of Mr Trump’s policies, including how to deal with the pandemic and immigration. But as calls from lawmakers, civil rights activists, and even Facebook’s own staff increased to contain Mr Trump on social media, Mr Zuckerberg declined to act. He said the speeches given by political leaders, even if they are telling lies, were timely and in the public interest.

The two men appeared cordial at occasional meetings in Washington. Mr Zuckerberg visited the White House more than once and dined privately with Mr Trump.

The courtesy ended on January 6th. Hours before his supporters stormed the Capitol, Mr Trump used Facebook and other social media to cast doubts on the results of the presidential election he lost to Joseph R. Biden Jr. Trump wrote on Facebook, “Our country has had enough, them will not take it anymore! “

Less than 24 hours later, Mr Trump was banned from the platform indefinitely. While his Facebook page stayed active, she slept. His last Facebook post on January 6th read: “I ask everyone in the US Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! “

Cecilia Kang contributed to coverage from Washington.

Categories
World News

Fb upholds Trump ban however will reassess choice over coming months

Facebook upholds Trump ban but will reassess decision over coming months

Former US President Donald Trump speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 28, 2021 in Orlando, Florida, USA.

Joe Skipper | Reuters

Facebook’s independent board of directors decided on Wednesday to uphold the company’s January decision to suspend former President Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts.

However, the indefinite time frame for the suspension is “not appropriate”. The board has effectively relayed the decision on the length of the suspension to Facebook, stating that it insists that the company look into this matter to identify and justify an appropriate response that is in line with the rules in place for other users of its platform be valid. “”

The board asked Facebook to complete the review within six months and made suggestions on how to create clear guidelines that balance public safety and freedom of expression.

“We will now examine the decision of the board and determine a measure that is clear and proportionate,” said Facebook in a blog post after the announcement. “In the meantime, Mr. Trump’s accounts remain suspended.”

The case

Facebook blocked Trump’s accounts after the January 6 riot in the U.S. Capitol. The suspension was Facebook’s most aggressive move against Trump during his four-year tenure.

“We believe that the risk that the president can continue to use our service during this time is simply too great,” wrote Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg at the time in a post on his Facebook page.

Facebook referred the decision to its board of directors a few weeks later, saying that given the importance of the decision, “it is important for the board to review it and make an independent judgment as to whether it should be upheld”.

The decision to maintain Trump’s suspension is the most important action taken by the board of directors so far, which was initiated in October as the de facto “supreme court” for the company’s decisions on content moderation.

The Board is an independent body made up of experts in the fields of citizenship, technology, freedom of speech, journalism and human rights from around the world. A randomly selected but diverse group of five board members was selected to deliberate on the case, and the recommendation had to be approved by a majority of the entire 20-member board of directors.

Facebook had previously agreed to abide by the decisions of the board of directors, although Zuckerberg still has undisputed control over the company and the majority rule over the company’s shares.

The results of the board

The board found that Trump’s January 6th post “seriously violated” Facebook’s community standards. However, the platform “tries to evade its responsibilities” by imposing a vague penalty and then sending it to the board for review.

Trump’s statements on Facebook: “We love you. You are very special,” referring to the people who hang around the US Capitol, who rioters called “great patriots” and told them to “stay forever.” remember this day, “violated the rules of Facebook prohibiting the praise of people who are involved in violence, wrote the board of directors.

“The board noted that by maintaining an unfounded portrayal of electoral fraud and persistent calls to action, Mr Trump has created an environment where there is a serious risk of violence,” the board wrote, adding that Trump was posting his testimony there , immediate risk of harm and his words of support for those involved in the riots legitimized their violent actions. “

However, Facebook’s decision to issue the ban indefinitely was not justified, the board found, because it “did not follow a clear, published procedure.”

“By imposing a vague, standard-less penalty and then referring this case to the board for resolution, Facebook is trying to evade its responsibilities,” the board wrote. “The board rejects Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty.”

Speaking to reporters after the decision, co-chair Helle Thorning-Schmidt said the group basically told Facebook that they can’t just invent new unwritten rules if they see fit. Co-chair Michael McConnell said it was far from the first time Facebook had made ad hoc rules.

The co-chairs admitted Facebook’s decision might get back to their desks, but McConnell said the decision could be easier if Facebook followed its recommendations for creating clear guidelines.

The board said that while Facebook should apply the same rules to all members, the company should consider context when assessing the harm, even if posts are made by “influential users”. It added that timeliness considerations “should not be a priority when urgent action is needed to prevent significant harm”.

Facebook should publicly explain the rules by which users are banned for specific periods of time and assess whether the risk of harm has changed before the ban is lifted, the board wrote. Still, the board said that deleting an account or page might be appropriate in certain circumstances.