Journalist/developer. Storytelling developer @ USA Today Network. Builder of @HomicideWatch. Sinophile for fun. Past: @frontlinepbs @WBUR, @NPR, @NewsHour.
2088 stories
·
45 followers

Mark Zuckerberg lies about content moderation to Joe Rogan’s face - The Verge

3 Shares

I’ll spare you the experience of listening to one of the richest men in the world whine and just tell you straight out: Mark Zuckerberg’s interview on The Joe Rogan Experience is full of lies.

Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook’s parent company Meta, sets the tone at the very beginning: “I think at some level you only start one of these companies if you believe in giving people a voice, right?”

Unfortunately I wasn’t born yesterday, and I remember Zuckerberg’s first attempt at getting rich: FaceMash, a clone of HotOrNot where he uploaded photos of his fellow female students to be rated — without their consent. “Giving people a voice” is one way of describing that, I suppose. Personally, I’d call it “creep shit.” 

If you can get away with the small bullshit, you can get away with the big bullshit, right?

Early on in the interview, Zuckerberg tests out the water to see how much pushback he’ll get; Rogan is a notoriously soft interviewer — it’s like listening to your dumbest stoned friend hold a conversation — but he does occasionally challenge his guests. So Zuckerberg says that there are limits on the First Amendment by saying, “It’s like, all right, you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.”

“Fire in a crowded theater” makes every lawyer I know foam at the mouth because it’s flat out wrong. It is not the law, and it never has been. And, obviously, you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater — especially if, you know, the theater is on fire. Rogan says nothing in response to this, and Zuckerberg knows he’s got a willing mark. If you can get away with the small bullshit, you can get away with the big bullshit, right?

For his part, Rogan serves up Zuckerberg a series of softballs, setting his own tone by referring to content moderation as “censorship.” The idea that the government was forcing Zuckerberg to “censor” news about covid and covid vaccines, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and the election is something of a running theme throughout the interview. When Zuckerberg isn’t outright lying about any of this, he’s quite vague — but in case you were wondering, a man who was formally rebuked by the city of San Francisco for putting his name on a hospital while his platforms spread health misinformation thinks that “on balance, the vaccines are more positive than negative.” Whew!

Misinformation on Facebook started well before the 2016 election — as early as 2014, scammers were spreading Ebola lies on Facebook. Shortly after the 2016 election, Adam Mosseri — then Facebook’s VP of product management — said in a statement that Facebook was combating fake news but “there’s so much more we need to do.” Facebook did receive criticism for spreading fake news, including misinformation that benefitted President Donald Trump, but even then, Zuckerberg wasn’t having it. “I do think there is a certain profound lack of empathy in asserting that the only reason someone could have voted the way they did is they saw some fake news,” Zuckerberg said. 

“It’s something out of like 1984.

Still, in the 2020 election, Facebook — along with other social media networks — took a harsher stance on fake news, making it harder for Macedonian teenagers to make a profit off Trump supporters. During his Rogan interview, Zuckerberg now characterizes this intervention as giving “too much deference to a lot of folks in the media who were basically saying, okay, there’s no way that this guy could have gotten elected except for misinformation.”

Facebook implemented a fact-checking program, one that involved partners such as the conservative online magazine The Dispatch, Reuters, Agence France-Presse and USA Today. In a concession to Donald Trump’s second presidency, implemented before Trump even took the oath of office, Zuckerberg has said Facebook will end the program. “We’re going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms,” Zuckerberg said in the video announcing the move.

On the Rogan show, Zuckerberg went further in describing the fact-checking program he’d implemented: “It’s something out of like 1984.” He says the fact-checkers were “too biased,” though he doesn’t say exactly how.

The problem wasn’t that the fact-checking was bad; it was that conservatives are more likely to share misinformation and get fact-checked, as some research has shown. That means conservatives are also more likely to be moderated. In this sense, perhaps it wasn’t Facebook’s fact-checking systems that had a liberal bias, but reality.

The biggest lie of all is a lie of omission

Well, Zuckerberg’s out of the business of reality now. I am sympathetic to the difficulties social media platforms faced in trying to moderate during covid — where rapidly-changing information about the pandemic was difficult to keep up with and conspiracy theories ran amok. I’m just not convinced it happened the way Zuckerberg describes. Zuckerberg whines about being pushed by the Biden administration to fact-check claims: “These people from the Biden administration would call up our team, and, like, scream at them, and curse,” Zuckerberg says. 

“Did you record any of these phone calls?” Rogan asks.

“I don’t know,” Zuckerberg says. “I don’t think we were.”

Many of the controversial moderation calls Facebook made in the pandemic were during the Trump administration

Rogan then asks who, specifically, was pressuring Facebook. And Zuckerberg has no answer: “It was people in the Biden administration,” he says. “I think it was, you know, I wasn’t involved in those conversations directly, but I think it was.”

But the biggest lie of all is a lie of omission: Zuckerberg doesn’t mention the relentless pressure conservatives have placed on the company for years  — which has now clearly paid off. Zuckerberg is particularly full of shit here because Republican Rep. Jim Jordan released Zuckerberg’s internal communications which document this!

In his letter to Jordan’s committee, Zuckerberg writes, “Ultimately it was our decision whether or not to take content down.” Emphasis mine. “Like I said to our teams at the time, I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any Administration in either direction – and we’re ready to push back if something like this happens again.”

Those emails also reveal Zuckerberg wanted to blame the Biden White House for how Facebook chose to moderate the “lab leak” conspiracy theory of covid origins. “Can we include that the WH put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory?” he asked in a WhatsApp chat. His former president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, responded, “I don’t think they put specific pressure on that theory.”

Joel Kaplan, the former George W. Bush advisor who has now replaced Clegg, said that blaming the White House for Facebook’s behavior would “supercharge” conservatives who believed the social media giant was “collaborating” with the Biden administration. “If they’re more interested in criticizing us than actually solving the problems, then I’m not sure how it’s helping the cause to engage with them further,” Zuckerberg wrote. This doesn’t seem to show that the Biden administration successfully censored anything.

Facebook was widely and obviously targeted by Republican lawmakers

In fact, many of the controversial moderation calls Facebook made in the pandemic were during the Trump administration. Take, for instance, the “Plandemic” video hoax: Facebook removed the video in 2020. Joe Biden took office in 2021. If Zuckerberg was dealing with an administration pressuring him about this, it was the Trump administration. The Biden White House may well have engaged in similar outreach, but it was joining what was already an active discussion about Facebook moderation.

Facebook was widely and obviously targeted by Republican lawmakers, including Jordan, Senator Ted Cruz, Florida governor Ron DeSantis, Texas governor Greg Abbott, Senator Marsha Blackburn, and incoming Vice President JD Vance. It was mostly conservatives who threatened him during the interminable and pointless Congressional hearings Zuckerberg sat through for years – often asking him to comment directly on conspiracy theories or demand that individual trolls be reinstated to his platforms.

But Zuckerberg didn’t mention any of that to Rogan. Instead, he was upset that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau started investigating him for improperly using financial information to target ads. What does Zuckerberg say about this? Well, let me give it to you straight: 

They kind of found some theory they wanted to investigate. And it’s like, okay, clearly they were trying really hard, right? To like, to like, find, find some theory, but it, like, I don’t know. It just, it kind of, like, throughout the, the, the, the, the party and the government, there was just sort of, I don’t know if it’s, I don’t know how this stuff works. I mean, I’ve never been in government. I don’t know if it’s like a directive or it’s just like a quiet consensus that like, we don’t like these guys. They’re not doing what we want. We’re going to punish them. But, but it’s, it’s, it’s tough to be at the other end of that.

This is a compelling demonstration that jujitsu and MMA training (or hunting pigs in Hawaii or making your neck real thick or whatever) isn’t going to help you act aggressive if you’re constitutionally bitchmade. Blaming the CFPB for a witch-hunt when we’ve all watched Republicans target Facebook really is something! That’s what this whole performance is about: getting Trump, Vance, Jordan and the rest of the Republican party to lay off. After all, the Cambridge Analytica scandal cost Facebook just $5 billion — chump change, really. If Zuckerberg plays ball, his next privacy whoopsie could be even cheaper.

In fact, Zuckerberg even offers Republicans another target: Apple. According to Zuckerberg, the way Apple makes money is “by basically, like, squeezing people.” Among his complaints: 

  • Apple’s 30 percent commission on App Store sales 
  • Airpods work better with Apple phones than all other headphones
  • Apple wouldn’t let Zuckerberg’s Meta Ray-Bans connect to iOS using the same quick-setup protocol Airpods use
  •  iMessage is a walled garden, and groupchats go wonky if there’s a person with an Android phone in there
  • “I mean at some point I did this like back of the envelope calculation of like all the random rules that Apple puts out. If you know, if they didn’t apply, like I think you know, it’s like — and this is just Meta, I think we’d like, make twice as much profit or something.”

At least some of these Apple issues actually matter — there is a legitimate DOJ antitrust case against the company. But that isn’t what’s on Zuckerberg’s mind. The last point is the important one, from his perspective. He has a longstanding grudge against Apple after the company implemented anti-tracking features into its default browser, Safari. Facebook criticized those changes in newspaper ads, even. The policy cost social media companies almost $10 billion, according to The Financial Times; Facebook lost the most money “in absolute terms.” You see, it turns out if you ask people whether they want to be tracked, the answer is generally no — and that’s bad for Facebook’s business.

Zuckerberg wants us to believe this isn’t about politics at all

But Zuckerberg wants us to believe this isn’t about politics at all. Getting Rogan’s listeners riled up about Zuckerberg’s enemies and finding Republicans a new tech company target is just a coincidence, as are the changes to allow more hate speech on his platforms happening now, changes that just happen to pacify Republicans. All of this has nothing to do with the incoming administration, Zuckerberg tells Rogan. “I think a lot of people look at this as like a purely political thing, because they kind of look at the timing and they’re like, hey, well, you’re doing this right after the election.” he says. “We try to have policies that reflect mainstream discourse.”

And did this work? Did Zuckerberg’s gambit to talk about how social media needed more “masculine energy” win over the bros? Well, Barstool’s Dave Portnoy isn’t fooled by this shit.

I don’t know. I did think it was pretty funny that after all these complaints about government “censorship,” Zuckerberg didn’t say a word about Trump and the Republicans’ efforts at it. After all, Trump, the incoming president who has on occasion threatened to put Zuckerberg in prison, was recently asked if the Facebook changes were in response to his threats.

Read the whole story
acdha
3 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
chrisamico
3 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete

Watch Duty App Creator Says He'll Never Pull an OpenAI

2 Shares

Watch Duty shot to the top of the Apple App Store charts on Wednesday, racking up roughly half a million downloads in just a day as three brutal wildfires raged through Southern California, killing at least five people and forcing thousands to evacuate. The app gives users the latest alerts about fires in their area and has become a vital service for millions of users in the western U.S. struggling with the seemingly constant threat of deadly wildfires—one major reason it had over 360,000 unique visits from 8:00-8:30 a.m. local time Wednesday. And the man behind Watch Duty promises that as a nonprofit, his organization has no plans to pull an OpenAI and become a profit-seeking enterprise.

Watch Duty was created in 2021 by John Mills, the founder and CEO, who was inspired to build an app after experiencing frightening wildfires in 2019 and 2020 near his home in Sonoma County, California. Mills, a tech entrepreneur who sold his company Zenput a few years ago, said he couldn’t find the information he needed online and was doing extensive research on who would have the most up-to-date info. Mills evacuated his property during the Walbridge Fire in 2020 and decided he needed to take action.

“I spent day and night for eight days just up all night listening to radios, digging through the internet, and just realized this was a broken, broken problem,” Mills said. “And a lot of the people who got me through that fire are actually now employees of my company.”

Mills said those people guided him through his issues and it took him about six more months before he realized that the same people who helped him were the key to this problem—because Watch Duty isn’t just one guy who coded an app, though Mills did that himself. It’s a team of people who actually make the thing work. Watch Duty covers 22 states and has 15 full-time staff, seven of them reporters who provide updates on the app, and dozens of volunteers.

“Surprisingly, it only took us about 80 days to get [Watch Duty] off the ground,” said Mills, noting that it’s a pretty lightweight app. “The key was really the reporters themselves, the radio operators, right?”

Mills said he just needed to explain to people who might work on the app that he wasn’t “some Silicon Valley tech bro trying to profit off disaster,” but just a guy who was concerned about protecting his own property during wildfires and thought it could be useful to others. They launched in just three California counties in August 2021 but gained 50,000 users in the span of just a couple of weeks. Last year, Watch Duty had 7.2 million users, up from 1.9 million the year earlier.

“Engineering taught me to engineer, but then as I got older, you realize that like, if you build it, they won’t come, right?” Mills said. “Like why are you building it? Why does this matter, right? How do you get this to market? How do you really leverage technology to be able to make a difference in the world?”

That’s when it clicked for Mills. He told Gizmodo it was all about getting emergency radio monitors who had the latest information and pushing what they knew onto an app as reporters.

The organization was founded as a non-profit 501(c)(3) and strives to be transparent about its finances and work in the public interest. The app is free but users can subscribe for additional features that are neat, though not vital to keeping people safe, like information on where air tankers may be flying at any given moment.

Watch Duty brought in $2 million in revenue last year from 65,500 paying members, an additional $600,000 from individual donors, and a $2 million grant from Google. The organization also received a $1 million grant from a wealthy businessperson who has opted to remain anonymous, Mills tells Gizmodo. Watch Duty’s website includes a 2024 annual report that breaks down where its money goes and what goals the organization has for 2025.

“We’re trying to find a way to make a sustainable nonprofit that supports the free version without having to do this horrible idea of like fundraising in December because you’re not going to make your budget in January, and throw a bunch of galas and beg people for money,” said Mills.

In 2012 Mills founded Zenput, a tech platform used by restaurants for inventory and scheduling, and sold the company in 2022. His father was both a cabinet maker and an executive with IBM, which is one reason he’s been working with computers since he was a young kid.

“I grew up in a wood shop with a computer, right? So I’ve been writing code since I was eight. Before that, I grew up working with my hands. And so a lot of my life has been in technology,” said Mills. At eight, he was too young to work with the power tools his dad used for cabinet-making, so he would “go use the computer and start hacking.”

Mills understands the gravity of what he’s created and the vital resource it can be in life-threatening situations. “When Watch Duty goes off in your pocket, it’s because something bad’s happening,” said Mills.

The app has received recognition both locally in California and nationally, with an invitation to an Innovation Roundtable at the White House back in October 2024. The organization is looking to expand into other states and cover other types of natural disasters like floods.

“We call this company Watch Duty, not Fire Duty on purpose, right?” Mills said. “We knew from the beginning it was about geospatial problems. If people have to migrate, that’s the business we want to be in.”

Mills promises that his nonprofit has no plans to shift from a non-profit model to something more profitable, like OpenAI recently did in a move that raised more than a few eyebrows.

“Unlike OpenAI, we’re not changing. We’re not for sale. That’s nonsense behavior,” Mills said, describing the sneaky corporate structure of OpenAI. “There’s no shell companies. There’s no other owner or anything up underneath the corporation on purpose.”

Read the whole story
chrisamico
4 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
acdha
5 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Facebook Deletes Internal Employee Criticism of New Board Member Dana White

1 Share
Read the whole story
chrisamico
6 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete

More than 100 journalists were killed this year – over half of them in Palestine

1 Share

Fifty-five journalists were killed in Palestine this year, and nearly all have been forced from their homes, data shows

Worldwide, 104 journalists and media workers were killed in 2024 – and more than half of them were in Palestine.

Journalists there have faced death more than their colleagues in any other country, according to the International Federation of Journalists.

Continue reading...
Read the whole story
chrisamico
16 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete

To Log Into WordPress, You Now Have To Agree Pineapple on Pizza Is Good

2 Shares
Read the whole story
chrisamico
29 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete

Using open source tools to track the biggest fight in BJJ

1 Share

The morning of June 11, a Klaxon alert told me that Tommy Langaker’s name had just dropped off the list of competitors at ADCC, the world’s most prestigious submission grappling tournament.

In this weird, niche sport that I obsess over, this was an early warning sign, a rumble before an avalanche. Athletes who’d spent years trying to reach ADCC were jumping to a rival tournament, the Craig Jones Invitational.

Submission grappling, as a professional sport, is younger than most of its competitors, and some of them are teenagers. There is no unified ruleset or governing body. Full-time athletes regularly enter tournaments alongside part-time hobbyists.

For fans of the sport, the peak of the competition calendar is the Abu Dhabi Combat Club championship, or ADCC, a tournament founded by Sheik Tahnoon Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the son of UAE’s first president and now its national security advisor and brother of the current president.

Held every other year, ADCC is often called “the Olympics of submission grappling,” though few outside the sport even know it exists. It is like the Olympics in one way: the winners earn more in fanfare and prestige than cash, even as participating athletes have become ever more professionalized.

The sport itself can look like wrestling, except you win by making your opponent submit using a joint lock or stranglehold. Since a pin doesn’t end the fight, it’s normal for grapplers to fight from the bottom, working to off balance the top player or entangle limbs. Levi Jones-Leary, who ultimately finished second at CJI, started every match by sitting down in front of his opponent.

No grappler is making a living off prize money, because most tournaments offer little to no prize money. Those who treat it like a job hustle for sponsorships and teach seminars and sell instructional videos.

One of those athletes, two-time ADCC silver medalist Craig Jones, raised several million dollars from unnamed funders to challenge ADCC’s dominance. He scheduled a rival tournament – the Craig Jones Invitational – for the same weekend as this year’s tournament, offering a million-dollar prize to the winner.

With the two organizers fighting over the same competitors, I set up a Klaxon alert on each tournament’s roster.

And in June, it happened. “Has Tommy Langaker said anything about CJI?” I posted in a Discord group for grappling fans. “His name just dropped off the ADCC list.” I found Langaker’s sudden absence surprising, since he had won ADCC’s European trials, a grueling competition in itself, to qualify for this year’s championship.

It took three more days for Langaker to formally announce he was dropping out of ADCC to compete at CJI, Jones’ competing event. Other athletes followed, and Klaxon emailed me each time, as the two tournaments jostled for the best athletes in the sport.

I spent most of the summer obsessing over the fight between these two tournaments and their organizers, and in doing so, I leaned on some of MuckRock’s core tools: FOIA requests, DocumentCloud and Klaxon.

What does it cost to run the biggest submission grappling events in the world?

Jones and Jassim spent the spring and summer sniping at each other over social media, but at the heart of the dispute was money: What does it cost to run the biggest submission grappling events in the world?

ADCC’s main organizer, Mo Jassim, spent lavishly on 2022’s world championship to turn the tournament into a premier spectacle. The UFC’s Bruce Buffer announced fights and taiko drummers played between bouts. When Jassim changed the venue to T-Mobile Arena in 2024, it raised the cost even more.

Many athletes who were competing at ADCC asked why money was going to a venue and not to them, given the brewing controversy around underpaid fighters. Several competitors, including 2022 champion Ffion Davies, said they could make more money in other events, and that doing a tournament just for exposure and prestige wasn’t worth it.

Jassim’s original venue, the Thomas & Mack Center, is part of the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, and therefore subject to Nevada’s public records laws. And because Jones thought it would be a good troll to hold his event at the same venue as the last ADCC, we can see what both promotions spent in the same place.

I filed three public records requests with the University of Nevada-Las Vegas:

  • May 29: the booking contract for CJI

  • June 20: contracts and ticket sales for ADCC 2022

  • Sept. 9: final sales and contract amendments for CJI

To be honest, I didn’t think UNLV would give me any of this. Events are a big business and I expected the university to find an excuse or an exemption to keep sales figures private. To its credit, UNLV fulfilled each of these requests in about a week, with no redactions.

Did CJI earn enough in ticket sales to cover its huge prizes?

Besides poaching competitors, CJI made waves for its massive prize pool:

  • $1 million to each of the two divisions’ winners (Nick Rodriguez and Kade Ruotolo)

  • $20,000 for best submission (Lucas Kanard)

  • $50,000 for most exciting grappler (Andrew Tackett)

  • $10,001 show money for 16 competitors

  • Unknown show/prize money for the superfight between Ffion Davies and Mackenzie Dern

  • Unknown show money for Gabi Garcia

Jones told podcaster Joe Rogan that a mystery funder was covering costs entirely, and ticket sales would go to charity. The CJI organizers have not released sponsorship figures or ad revenue, which was streamed live on YouTube for free.

So, did its ticket sales equal its prizes? No. But it did net slightly more than ADCC did in 2022.

CJI sold a total of 6,823 tickets. That earned about $864,512 in gross revenue. The Thomas & Mack Center kept $254,952 to cover costs, including what CJI had prepaid, eventually paying out $674,560 to Jones’ organization, the Fair Fight Foundation.

In 2022, its most recent event, ADCC sold 10,238 tickets, earning $1,099,980 in gross revenue.

Across almost all venue categories, ADCC spent more than CJI, despite paying less in rent. It spent $352,823 on services provided by Thomas & Mack, almost $100,000 more than CJI.

Cost comparison ADCC 2022 CJI 2024
Rent, including load-in $80,000 $90,000
Front-of-house $175,248.20 $79,622.04
Back-of-house $44,948.50 $39,784.50
Total venue charges $352,822.50 $254,951.60
Net revenue $666,333.46 $674,560.35

ADCC’s total prize pool in 2022 was $230,600, according to its website. The highest payouts went to the winners of the open weight division and superfight – Yuri Simões and Gordon Ryan, respectively. Men’s division winners earned $10,000; women earned $6,000.

Two months after ADCC, Jassim resigned as head organizer for the tournament. Jones has promised to host CJI again. On Dec. 7, he announced on Instagram that he’d secured funding for a tournament in August 2025.

One person who likely out-earned every athlete at ADCC 2022 only briefly set foot on the mats: Bruce Buffer charges from $40,000 to $74,999 for his role as a ring announcer.

Read every document used in this story

Read the whole story
chrisamico
31 days ago
reply
Boston, MA
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories