Mark Zuckerberg, absent in the inaction

Copyright of the image
Getty Images

Mark Zuckerberg is both General Manager and Facebook President. As a result of a damning New York Times report, he has to face new questions to find out if he should give up at least one of these roles.

The Times report, based on interviews with more than 50 insiders, is extraordinary. Mr. Zuckerberg is notable for his absence when making important decisions within the company that he founded while he was still a student.

As to whether Donald Trump, by calling for a ban on Muslim entry into the United States, had broken Facebook's policies: "Mr. Zuckerberg did not participate in the debate.

On the issue of sharing data on the extent to which the company should share details of Russian interference with the public, Mr. Zuckerberg "did not participate in the conversations".

And Alex Stamos, the security manager of the company, now gone, would have been "alarmed" by the lack of awareness of Mr. Zuckerberg to false information. While Zuckerberg viewed this concern as a "crazy idea," Stamos knew very differently – but was later reprimanded for conducting an investigation without the permission of his superiors.

(The company said in a blog post that this had never prevented Mr. Stamos from looking into the issue. affirmed the same thing in a tweet.)

False news

The revelations were shockingly read, especially for Zuckerberg, who told reporters on Thursday that the first time he had heard of most of these problems was through reading of it on Wednesday.

Mr. Zuckerberg, who has been filling his staff for two years with political veterans from Washington DC (and more recently Nick Clegg, Europeans), said he was surprised to learn that his company had used sneaky tactics to discredit activists. on political opponents and criticize rival companies.

Copyright of the image
Getty Images

This kind of behavior "could be normal in Washington," said Zuckerberg, "but it's not something I want Facebook to be associated with." In 2017, Facebook spent $ 11.5 million and 11 lobbying companies to promote the company's interests in Washington.

These efforts are now typical of Silicon Valley giants: Google spent $ 18 million over the same period. But it was the actions of a company, Definers, that got things done.

Mr. Zuckerberg did not know, he said, that Definers was, on behalf of Facebook, telling reporters that a group of the anti-Facebook campaign, known as Freedom From Facebook, was secretly funded by George Soros. If you have ever had the misfortune to scan the dirty basement of the Internet, you will know that the plots about Mr. Soros, which have mostly an anti-Semitic connotation, are commonplace.

It turns out that Mr. Soros is apparently not the rich supporter of Freedom from Facebook. His foundation denies it, calling this case "reprehensible".

According to Axios, the money actually comes from David Magerman, a philanthropist and former hedge fund manager in Pennsylvania. He said that he wanted to inform the public "of the risks associated with the use of Facebook".

"Someone from the communication team"

All this leaves us in a position where Mr Zuckerberg, who has told us over and over again that he was working hard to put an end to fictitious information, may have been responsible for funding some of them. .

Facebook has denied ever asking the Definers "to pay or write articles on behalf of Facebook – or spread misinformation". But the Times report establishes a direct line between the public relations firm and the pro-Facebook articles on NTK Network, a "news" site with which it has direct links.

In his interview with reporters on Thursday, Zuckerberg admitted he did not know the essential details. He said that he did not know what the Definers activities were or who, on Facebook, had authorized this work. Probably "someone from the communications team," he suggested.

Answering several questions – mainly of the type "how did you let this happen?" – he seemed to believe that his ignorance was a defense rather than an embarrassment.

"I learned this relationship by reading the New York Times article," he repeated. "As soon as I read it, I looked to find out if that was the type of business we wanted to work with and we stopped working with them."

It is obvious that Mr Zuckerberg's team prevents him from participating or decides to withdraw. Anyway, we do not really know who is the real head of Facebook at this critical time for society.

When asked if he was considering resigning as chairman of Facebook's board of directors, he said, "I do not think this proposal is the right way to go."

The decision would be his and his alone. Thanks to the company's stock structure, it has absolute control over the company and its board of directors.

________

Follow Dave Lee on Twitter @DaveLeeBBC

Do you have more information about this or any other technology story? You can reach Dave directly and securely via the encrypted email application. Report it: +1 (628) 400-7370