Mark
Zuckerberg is both chief executive and chairman of Facebook. In the wake of a
damning New York Times report, he is facing renewed questions on whether he
should relinquish at least one of those roles.
The Times’
report, which it said was based on interviews with more than 50 insiders, is
extraordinary. Mr Zuckerberg is notable by his absence at times of major
decision-making at the firm he founded as a college kid.
On the topic
of whether Donald Trump, in calling for a ban on Muslims entering the US, had
broken Facebook’s policies: “Mr Zuckerberg did not participate in the debate.”
On the issue
of sharing data about to what extent the firm should share details of Russian
meddling with the public, Mr Zuckerberg “did not participate in the
conversations”.
And Alex
Stamos, the firm’s now-departed head of security, is said to have been
“alarmed” at Mr Zuckerberg’s lack of awareness of fake news. As Mr Zuckerberg
brushed off the concern as a “crazy idea”, Mr Stamos knew very differently -
but was reportedly later scolded for investigating without permission from his
superiors.
(The company
has now said in a blog post that it had never stopped Mr Stamos from looking
into the issue. He asserted the same in a tweet.)
In a
conference call to journalists, Mark Zuckerberg laid out some concrete things
the social network intends to do to improve how it deals with fake news and objectionable
content, including:
Sheryl
Sandberg also responded to the criticisms in a blogpost.
But the
revelations in the New York Times made for shocking reading - not least to Mr
Zuckerberg, who repeatedly told journalists on Thursday that the first he had
heard about most of these issues was by reading about it on Wednesday.
Mr
Zuckerberg, who has spent the past two years filling his staff with Washington
DC political veterans (and more recently, in Nick Clegg, European ones), said
he was surprised to learn that his firm had employed underhand tactics to smear
activists, put pressure on political opponents, and criticise rival firms.
That kind of
behaviour "might be normal in Washington,” Mr Zuckerberg said, "but
it’s not something I want Facebook to be associated with”. In 2017 Facebook
spent $11.5m, and hired 11 lobbying firms, to push the company's interests in
Washington.
Such efforts
are now typical of Silicon Valley giants - Google spent $18m in the same
period. But it was the actions of one firm, Definers, that took things a step
further.
Mr
Zuckerberg did not know, he said, that Definers was, on behalf of Facebook,
allegedly pushing a narrative to journalists that an anti-Facebook campaign
group, known as Freedom from Facebook, was secretly funded by George Soros. If
you’ve ever been unfortunate enough to peer into the internet’s dirty basement,
you’ll know conspiracies about Mr Soros, mostly with anti-Semitic undertones,
are commonplace.
Mr Soros, as
it turns out, is apparently not the wealthy backer behind Freedom from
Facebook. His foundation denies it, calling the whole affair “reprehensible”.
According to
Axios, the money is actually coming from David Magerman, a philanthropist and
former hedge fund manager from Pennsylvania. He said he wanted to inform the
public "about the risks of engaging with Facebook”.
‘Someone on
the communications team'
All this
leaves us in a place where Mr Zuckerberg, who has repeatedly reassured us he is
working hard to stop fake news, may have actually been responsible for funding
some of it.
Facebook
denied ever asking Definers "to pay for, or write, articles on Facebook’s
behalf - or to spread misinformation". But the Times report draws a direct
line between the PR firm and pro-Facebook articles appearing on the NTK
Network, a "news" site with which it has direct ties.
During
Thursday’s call with journalists, Mr Zuckerberg admitted he did not know the
key details. He said he did not know what Definers’ activities were, or who at
Facebook authorised that work. Probably “someone on the communications team,”
he offered.
In answer to
several questions - mostly along the lines of “how did you let this happen?” -
he seemed to believe his ignorance was a defence, rather than an embarrassment.
“I learned
about this relationship when I read The New York Times piece,” he repeated. “As
soon as I read it, I looked into whether this is the type of firm that we want
to be working with, and we stopped working with them.”
It’s
apparent that Mr Zuckerberg’s team is keeping him out of the loop, or he’s
choosing to remove himself from it. Either way, it isn’t entirely clear who is
truly in charge at Facebook at this critical time for the company.
When asked
if he considered stepping down as chairman of Facebook’s board, he said:
"I don’t particularly think that that specific proposal is the right way
to go.”
The decision
would be his and his alone. Thanks to the firm's stock structure, he has
absolute control over the company and its board.
Comments