Failures

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
fosta, politics, sheryl sandberg



Facebook's Policy Team Steamrolled On FOSTA By Sheryl Sandberg's Personal Priorities

from the gone-political dept

We've discussed a few times the big NY Times article on Facebook employing smear merchants against its critics, discussing how disappointing, if common this tactic is, and also talking about how it's a sign of a company losing its way. This has become even more pronounced as, following Facebook COO's Sheryl Sandberg's original denial of knowledge specifically around the question of smears directed at George Soros, it's now been revealed that she both was cc'd on some of the emails from the PR company, and that she had directly asked for research on Soros' views on Facebook.

But I wanted to dig in a bit more on a specific point mentioned briefly in that NY Times report, concerning FOSTA. As we've detailed for many, many months FOSTA was a disastrous bill that has made sex trafficking worse while simultaneously creating huge problems for free speech and for internet companies -- including Facebook, which has already been sued under FOSTA.

What was notable, was that FOSTA was not going to move forward... until Facebook suddenly changed its position on the bill. Specifically, Sandberg suddenly became a vocal supporter of the bill, even as multiple policy experts at her own company had worked hard to stop the bill. At the time, it wasn't entirely clear to me if this was purely a Sandberg thing, or if it was a decision by the wider Facebook executive team that they had to support FOSTA as a fruitless attempt to appear willing to compromise on something after getting beat up from all sides over its role in Russian disinformation campaigns.

The original NY Times piece briefly mentions the FOSTA situation (referring to the bill's earlier SESTA name), suggesting that the decision here might have been driven by the smear merchant, Definers, angling for "positive content" about the company:

Definers had established a Silicon Valley outpost earlier that year, led by Tim Miller, a former spokesman for Jeb Bush who preached the virtues of campaign-style opposition research. For tech firms, he argued in one interview, a goal should be to “have positive content pushed out about your company and negative content that’s being pushed out about your competitor.”

Facebook quickly adopted that strategy. In November 2017, the social network came out in favor of a bill called the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, which made internet companies responsible for sex trafficking ads on their sites.

Google and others had fought the bill for months, worrying it would set a cumbersome precedent. But the sex trafficking bill was championed by Senator John Thune, a Republican of South Dakota who had pummeled Facebook over accusations that it censored conservative content, and Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat and senior commerce committee member who was a frequent critic of Facebook.

Facebook broke ranks with other tech companies, hoping the move would help repair relations on both sides of the aisle, said two congressional staffers and three tech industry officials.

However, in a more recent article from Bloomberg, talking about how many within Facebook feel that Sandberg has repeatedly made decisions based on her own political standing, rather than Facebook's, the claim appears that Sandberg herself made the decision to go against the rest of Facebook's policy position on this one:

Sandberg has at times focused on her own priorities over Facebook’s, the current and former employees also said. The COO is proactive when thinking about interpersonal relationships and messaging campaigns. Each winter, before the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, her team prepares a binder of all the people she might meet and what they might ask her. She uses this tactic throughout the year. But that kind of analysis — of what might occur before it happens — wasn’t as thoroughly applied to assessing risks to Facebook and how the company might be run differently, the employees said.

Around the same time Sandberg made the trip to D.C. in October 2017, Facebook and the broader technology industry were preparing for a battle over an important piece of legislation. The bill, meant to address child sex trafficking, also increased internet companies’ liability for content users posted on their services. Facebook’s policy team argued against the law. But then Sandberg got involved. After she was personally lobbied by women in Washington, she decided Facebook should support the legislation, according to people familiar with the matter. The surprise shift crippled the industry’s united front, and the bill passed.

The episode prompted questions among some Facebook staff over whether Sandberg was putting her own politics and relationships ahead of what was best for the company, according to two of the people.

That appears to be Facebook policy people telling the world that they knew that FOSTA would be terrible for Facebook and the wider internet, but Sandberg decided to support it... and got what she wanted.

And, of course, this also gives weight to the rumor I heard from multiple smaller tech companies, who believed that Facebook changed its position because it would harm them relative to Facebook. I specifically heard execs say they believed Facebook did this because "Facebook can handle the liability of FOSTA, but most of its competitors cannot." Or, as the head of Definers apparently believed, a good political move is to do something that damages your competitors...

While this is perhaps not out of the ordinary, it's quite disappointing and incredible that Sandberg's personal priorities may have been a key factor in passing a terrible bill that has already put lives in danger, free speech at risk, and harmed many internet companies through increased liability (including Facebook).


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    bob, 3 Dec 2018 @ 7:06am

    0x0FB0 BAD0

    And now I have one more reason to hate Facebook. Not that I needed any more in the first place.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2018 @ 7:41am

    Smearing Soros

    How would one go about doing such a thing exactly?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 4 Dec 2018 @ 8:27am

      Re: Smearing Soros

      Well, you'd start by pointing out (truthfully) that he is a political activist billionaire, whose interventions into politics and law are no different in form from those by the Koch brothers.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2018 @ 7:53am

    Sheryl Sandberg's forward thinking

    It's quite possible that Sheryl Sandberg wants to keep her options open for the possibliity of someday running for high political office, as it seems most high-profile female corporate executives of recent years have had a habit of doing.

    I'll bet that Sheryl Sandberg will follow the same path as Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, and if so, it would no doubt be a huge detriment to her campaign if she had stood on the "wrong" side of such a higly emotional and politically exploitable issue as FOSTA.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ShadowNinja (profile), 3 Dec 2018 @ 1:37pm

      Re: Sheryl Sandberg's forward thinking

      Carly Fiorina never stood a real chance in hell, she was just in it for the fame and money. Voters would never elect a proven failure like her who couldn't even claim to have been successful in business (minus the golden parachute part).

      Meg Whitman on the other hand might have won if she ran in a redder state.

      That said, recent executives who tanked their own organization to score political points and run for office didn't do so well (see the Komen executive Karen Handle who caused Komen to piss off literally everyone on the abortion issue with planned parenthood funding, which caused a huge hit to Komen's fundraising. She ran for the senate in Georgia and lost the primary)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Thad (profile), 3 Dec 2018 @ 2:18pm

        Re: Re: Sheryl Sandberg's forward thinking

        Voters would never elect a proven failure like her who couldn't even claim to have been successful in business (minus the golden parachute part).

        (Clears throat, points to president who bankrupted 4 companies)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2018 @ 8:00am

    Masnick? Criticizing Facebook? Why, that must mean he's a shill for Facebook! I don't know what else this could possibly mean.

    /out_of_the_blue

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Top Banana, Bottom Banana (my 1973 porn epic), 3 Dec 2018 @ 9:34am

      Re: Geez, "AC": MM here is defending Facebook!

      Joining no doubt the internal decision to make her the patsy for the Definers / attacking Soros bit.

      Backwards and totally WRONG about what Masnick wrote is a new low! Must have got confused by LYING about the stellar (former) "out_of_the_blue", the most reviled and influential commentor ever here, a name that still makes the fanboys panic though hasn't been used since 2014!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2018 @ 11:41am

      Re:

      The real out_of_the_blue would have said it proves that he's a shill for Google, as this would be Google's smear attack on Sandberg and Facebook.

      But in reality, it's just commentary on anti-free-speech corporate behavior, which is standard Masnick practice and doesn't need a sponsor.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ed (profile), 3 Dec 2018 @ 8:03am

    Sandberg needs to go. She needs to disappear and never be heard from again, never to be hired by any other company, especially not in any position of power. She is a disease that needs to be eradicated.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Top Banana, Bottom Banana (my 1973 porn epic), 3 Dec 2018 @ 9:38am

    Mainly MM back to false assertions on FOSTA:

    As we've detailed for many, many months FOSTA was a disastrous bill that has made sex trafficking worse while simultaneously creating huge problems for free speech and for internet companies -- including Facebook, which has already been sued under FOSTA.

    What's the disaster? Except for a few anecdotal reports of those who opposed it even before? Where's any effect on "free speech"? STATE SPECIFICS or buzz off. -- SO WHAT if Facebook is being sued? Are you so prejudiced that NO case could possibly have merit? -- Answer: yes, shown all the time here.

    This is NOT anti-Facebook -- though it's already counted as such! It's DAMAGE CONTROL by a Facebook supporter.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 3 Dec 2018 @ 10:35am

      Re: Mainly MM back to false assertions on FOSTA:

      STATE SPECIFICS or buzz off.

      Specifics found here: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=fosta

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2018 @ 10:49am

      Re: Mainly MM back to false assertions on FOSTA:

      What exactly are you attempting to state?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2018 @ 11:46am

      Re: Mainly MM back to false assertions on FOSTA:

      > It's DAMAGE CONTROL by a Facebook supporter.

      Hmm? I don't get the damage control part OR why someone would feel they need to support the actions of an executive of any major company when they differ from the experts inside the company and call themselves a supporter of the company....

      The damage here isn't necessarily the FOSTA/NO-FOSTA issue, but the fact that FB management is overriding the recommendations of their experts for political reasons.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DB (profile), 3 Dec 2018 @ 9:55am

    I don't believe that it was to promote her "personal brand".

    I think that it was a cynical corporate move to damage everyone in the industry with ambulance-chasing lawsuits, knowing that they would be one of the few that could survive.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.