INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
Image copyrightReuters/Getty ImagesFacebook faces a new controversy over alleged tactics it used to discredit its critics, embarrass rival
firms and downplay problems at the company.The New York Times has published a wide-ranging account of the methods Facebook and a public
relations firm used to "deny and deflect" criticism.The report has led US lawmakers to call for tighter regulation of social
networks.Facebook has denied several of the claims.The New York Times report claimed Facebook:urged reporters to investigate whether there
were financial links between billionaire George Soros, a prominent philanthropist, and an anti-Facebook movementtried to discredit
anti-Facebook protesters as anti-Semiticordered the publication of derogatory articles about rivalswatered down posts about Russian election
interference and was slow to actconsidered dragging rival companies into its controversiesThe newspaper said PR firm Definers had circulated
a document suggesting Mr Soros was the hidden backer of anti-Facebook movement Freedom from Facebook
The document encouraged journalists to explore the financial connections between anti-Facebook groups and Mr Soros, who is frequently the
target of conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic smears.Image copyrightGetty ImagesImage caption
George Soros is often the
target of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories
Mr Soros's Open Society Foundations said it had not made any grants to support
campaigns against Facebook
It said Facebook's behaviour was "astonishing"
"Your methods threaten the very values underpinning our democracy," said its president, Patrick Gaspard.Responding to the article, Facebook
said it had wanted to show that Freedom From Facebook was "not simply a spontaneous grassroots campaign" and that the movement was
"supported by a well-known critic of our company".It said any suggestion that it had been an anti-Semitic attack was "reprehensible".Did
Facebook try to discredit protestersImage copyrightGetty ImagesImage caption
Facebook has been criticised by privacy
campaigners
In July, protesters interrupted a House Judiciary Committee hearing where a Facebook executive was giving
The protesters carried signs showing Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg as two heads of an
octopus, wrapping its tentacles around the world.The New York Times said Facebook had called Jewish civil rights organisation the
Anti-Defamation League and asked them to comment on the sign
Soon after, the ADL posted a statement calling the image an "anti-Semitic trope".Facebook has not responded to this claim.The ADL said it
routinely responded to reports of anti-Semitic slurs and evaluated each one appropriately
Did it water down information about election meddlingAccording to the New York Times, Facebook executives were angry that its chief
information security officer, Alex Stamos, had directed a team to investigate Russian election meddling without approval
It said Ms Sandberg had been worried that investigating the interference left Facebook "exposed" to legal action.The company ordered blog
posts about election interference to be "less specific".The first blog post did not name Russia at all and the company "stalled" disclosing
information for weeks.Facebook said it had not named Russia in a research paper about election meddling because it had felt the US
intelligence services were "best placed to determine the source".The company said it had never discouraged its security experts from
investigating election interference.Did it plant negative news about rivalsThe newspaper said Facebook was responsible for dozens of
articles criticising Apple and Google for their business practices.The articles were published on conservative news site NTK Network, which
shares staff and offices with PR firm Definers
Image copyrightNTK NetworkImage caption
The NTK website ran dozens of stories about Apple and Google
While NTK itself does not have a large audience, its articles are often picked up by larger outlets such as Breitbart.Facebook said Mr
Zuckerberg had been clear that he disagreed with Apple chief executive Tim Cook's criticisms of his company and there had been "no need to
employ anyone else" to criticise Apple.It said Mr Zuckerberg and chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg had been "deeply involved in the
fight against false news".Did Facebook try to generate positive headlinesIn February 2018, Ms Sandberg publicly backed new legislation that
would hold social networks accountable if they failed to tackle sex trafficking on their platforms.Other technology companies had been
critical of the proposed law.According to the New York Times, Facebook felt backing the legislation would look positive and would win favour
with law-makers.But Facebook said Ms Sandberg had backed the legislation because "it was the right thing to do".Did Facebook try to drag
Google into its controversiesImage copyrightGetty ImagesImage caption
Sheryl Sandberg gave evidence to the Senate
Intelligence Committee
After a New York Times article revealed that Facebook had undeclared deals with phone-makers to share
user data with them, the company set up focus groups to test how it should react
One approach it tested was arguing that Google had similar data-sharing deals with phone-makers.When asked to testify in front of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Facebook lobbied for the hearing to include a Google representative, the newspaper said
Google was asked to testify but did not show up
Many of the news headlines of the day focused on Google's empty chair.What were the other allegationsThe report also said Facebook had urged
staff to use only Android devices, after Apple's Tim Cook had criticised the social network.Facebook said it encouraged employees and
executives to use Android because "it is the most popular operating system in the world".The newspaper also suggested Facebook had struggled
to work out how to deal with a post made by Donald Trump in 2015, calling for a ban on Muslim immigration."To suggest that the internal
debate around this particular case was different from other important free speech issues on Facebook is wrong," the company said in a blog
post.What has the reaction beenThe Wall Street Journal reported that morale at Facebook had fallen amid the ongoing scrutiny of the
company.It said it had seen an internal survey taken by 29,000 employees that reported only half were "optimistic" about the company's
future, a fall of 32 percentage points from the previous year.The Open Society Foundations president, Mr Gaspard, said Facebook had used
tactics "out of Putin's playbook" that had "no place in an important debate about the integrity of our elections".Democratic congressman
David Cicilline said in a post that "Facebook cannot be trusted to regulate itself"."Facebook executives will always put their massive
profits ahead of the interests of their customers," he said."Congress should get to work enacting new laws to hold concentrated economic
power to account." Facebook said it had ended its relationship with Definers and had never hidden its work with the consultancy
Definers has not yet responded to the TheIndianSubcontinent's request for comment.Analysisby Rory Cellan-Jones, technology correspondentWe
knew that Facebook's handling of its recent crises had been inept
Mark Zuckerberg's description of the idea that fake news put Donald Trump in the White House as "crazy" was a prime example.But now the New
York Times has painted a startling picture not just of negligence and mismanagement by Facebook's leaders but of deeply questionable tactics
as they fought to protect the image of their company.This new evidence of ethical failings will also embolden politicians and regulators
around the world who want to clip Facebook's wings
Read more:Facebook leaks take their toll
