Contact Me By Email

Saturday, July 09, 2022

Twitter faces 'worst case scenario' as Elon Musk terminates purchase - The Washington Post

As Musk moves to abandon deal, Twitter faces ‘worst case scenario’

"In attempting to walk away from the $44 billion acquisition, Elon Musk sets the stage for a legal battle, which could carry financial risks for the social network and further darken employee morale

In this illustration, a phone screen displays the Twitter account of Elon Musk with a photo of him shown in the background (Olivier DOULIERY / AFP) (Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)
In this illustration, a phone screen displays the Twitter account of Elon Musk with a photo of him shown in the background (Olivier DOULIERY / AFP) (Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)

Elon Musk’s attempt to terminate his Twitter acquisition will likely force the social network into a protracted legal battle and send its stock price diving — thrusting a new level of chaos upon the firm, after months of public disputes have battered its reputation and employee morale.

In short? “This was worst case scenario for Twitter, and now it’s happened,” said Dan Ives, the managing director and senior equity research analyst covering the tech sector at Wedbush Securities.

Ives warned that Musk’s bid to walk away may make the company appear to be “damaged goods” in the eyes of other investors or potential acquirers. Twitter shares were down nearly 6% in after hours trading on Friday. Wedbush Securities projects the stock could sink to between $25 and $30 when the market reopens Monday, down more than 30 percent from where it closed Friday afternoon before Musk’s filing.

In a Friday evening news release, Twitter’s board threatened to “pursue legal action” to enforce the terms of the $44 billion deal Musk struck in April to buy the social network and take it private. He is required to go through with the purchase barring a major change to the business, which legal experts say is a difficult to prove.

Twitter’s board said that it was confident the company would prevail in court, but analysts warn — and employees fear — that Musk’s letter sets the stage for a turbulent period, which could carry new financial risks for the company and its workers.

The billionaire has been threatening to pull back from the deal for weeks, but Friday’s filing opens a new front in the dramatic takeover of the social network, which wields outsize influence over news coverage and politics. Musk’s lawyers have repeatedly accused Twitter of failing to turn over data to help his team confirm the number of bots or spam accounts on the social network, setting a stage for a legal battle. Meanwhile, the company maintains it has complied with all of the terms of its agreement and has turned over its “firehose,” a massive stream of data comprising more than 500 million tweets posted everyday. Legal experts say Musk’s case doesn’t meet a threshold to allow him to walk away from the deal.

Even if Twitter does prevail in recovering the deal or recouping a $1 billion breakup fee, a court battle invites new challenges. Twitter could be forced make key business metrics public, inviting questions from Wall Street about the overall health of the company, which turned its first profit in 2018 amid a major financial retooling.

Donna Hitscherich, a Columbia Business School professor, said Musk’s filing will naturally raise questions about why he lost interest.

“Is he a material kind of guy who just changed his mind?” she said. “Or is there something really there to what he said might be issues with the fundamental nature of the business?”

After weeks of threats, employees have largely been bracing themselves for Musk to formally attempt to walk. “This has been the direction of travel for a while,” said one employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly discuss the situation within the company. “There’s been a general lack of belief that the deal would go through as signed.”

But its arrival only exasperated many workers, who say negotiations with Musk have brought intense scrutiny to Twitter. Any stock downturn would impact employee compensation, adding to the dismay of workers who have largely bristled at the prospect of the world’s richest man taking over their company. Since Musk announced his takeover, Twitter instituted a hiring freeze and has replaced key executives.

Twitter generally has a culture of transparency and open communication, the employee said, but because of the sensitivities around the deal, more information has been on lockdown. Those tensions could worsen if the deal goes to court.

That employee said their reaction to the twists and turns could be summed up most succinctly with a clown emoji.

Another employee, who previously supported the bid, described the situation as “totally depressing.”

“Musk is destroying Twitter,” said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for the same reasons. “The best result for shareholders will be closing the deal at $54.20, even with a hostile owner.”

Musk began complaining about the bot issue soon after he agreed to purchase and take the company private this spring. In a May tweet, he said the deal was “on hold” and insisted the purchase could not “move forward” until Twitter provided further proof of its methods for detecting spam.

Musk committed to using more than $33 billion of his own wealth, which largely comes from his ownership of Tesla, to complete the deal. But as the stock market has been roiled by a global sell-of of tech stocks, Tesla share values plummeted in the wake of the deal. Twitter’s stock has dropped 30% since Musk made his acquisition announcement, when it traded at $52.

Anticipating more scrutiny of the role of bots in the deal, Twitter gave a Thursday morning background briefing to reporters. The core of the presentation was about how Twitter calculates its estimate that unwanted bots make up less than 5% of what it terms Monetizable Average Daily Users, those which the company feels comfortable charging advertisers to reach.

Twitter does not ban all bots, which include purposeful automated accounts, such as those that post otter pictures on the hour or the temperature in a specific location. Instead, it is looking for indicators that include mass creation accounts or coordination among humans to artificially amplify a tweet, set of tweets or topic.

The company stressed that the firehose is not enough to understand the state of bots on the platform. Twitter alone can see all the private data, including the phone numbers or email addresses used to register accounts, which would corroborate whether an account is fake. Other critical information includes the IP address and the software configurations of the device using each account, which can pinpoint a single machine behind multiple personas.

Such statements appeared aimed at heading off declarations by Musk that of the firehose of tweets he has received, a large percentage seemed automated or coordinated. Indeed, Musk’s Friday night termination notice claimed that Twitter had not been provided him enough data about how it samples the user base.

Twitter’s experts acknowledged that individual user might feel that much more than 5% of their feed is unwanted content. That is, in part, because the company is measuring and disclosing problematic accounts, not their activity or impressions — so a small number of accounts might have a large footprint of views, especially among spam-heavy topics like crypto. Many others have questioned Twitter’s estimate in the past, including numerous academics.

Politicians and advocacy groups are closely scrutinizing disputes between Musk and the company because they recognize the deal’s outcome could have broad implications on the future of elections and political discourse.

Musk has said he would reverse the company’s ban on former president Donald Trump, which Twitter instituted shortly after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, citing the “risk of further incitement of violence.” His plans have been celebrated by conservatives, who accuse the company of censoring political speech, and impugned by liberals, who say his self-proclaimed free-speech absolutist positions could allow harassment and misinformation to run rampant on the platform.

A left-leaning watchdog group said Musk’s filing highlights why the deal has been fraught from the start. “While the fallout from Musk’s latest move still unfolds, one thing is clear: this chaotic crusade is nothing short of a five-alarm fire drill,” said Accountable Tech Co-Founder and Executive Director Nicole Gill in a statement. “Our information ecosystem, safety, and democracy cannot remain at the whim of unaccountable billionaires — whether it’s Elon Musk or anyone else.”

Meanwhile, conservatives said the blow-up supported their growing push to regulate content moderation of social media at both the state and national level. “The richest man in the world couldn’t even pull this off,” said Kara Frederick, the director of the Tech Policy Center at the conservative Heritage Foundation, in a Fox News interview Friday night. “It’s time to start talking about policy solutions.”

One of the Twitter employees said there have been discussions within the company about conservatives’ concerns with the platform, which employees are working to address, regardless of the outcome of the sale.

Still, the public debacle is unlikely to settle down.

“It was a political firestorm that Musk inserted himself into and now there’s going to be many of twists and turns again,” Ives said. “You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.”

Twitter faces 'worst case scenario' as Elon Musk terminates purchase - The Washington Post

Friday, July 08, 2022

Asteroid Bennu’s Surprising Surface Revealed by NASA Spacecraft

Elon Musk Twitter takeover deal in ‘serious jeopardy’ | Twitter | The Guardian

Elon Musk Twitter takeover deal in ‘serious jeopardy’


"Washington Post says Musk team has stopped certain funding discussions as Tesla CEO questions spam account figures

A phone screen displays the Twitter account of Elon Musk with a photo of him shown in the background
Legal experts say Elon Musk will struggle to terminate the takeover without a fight. Photograph: Olivier Douliery/AFP/Getty

The planned takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk is in “serious jeopardy”, according to a report, sending shares in the company 4% lower in after-hours trading on Wall Street.

Musk’s team has stopped certain discussions around funding for the $44bn deal, according to a report in the Washington Post, citing three people familiar with the matter. The report said Musk had concluded that Twitter’s figures on spam accounts – a bone of contention in the deal – were not verifiable.

Twitter executives defended their spam policy on Thursday, citing a specialist team and automated processes that weed out 1m fake accounts a day, but the report stated that access to the company’s feed of public tweet data had still failed to satisfy Musk. Twitter has stated consistently that fewer than 5% of its daily active users are spam accounts – a figure that Musk doubts openly.

The report said a “change in direction” from Musk was likely to come soon, indicating that he will follow through on threats to attempt to walk away from the agreed deal.

However, legal experts said the world’s richest man, who is also Tesla’s chief executive, would struggle to terminate the takeover without a legal fight. The agreement to buy Twitter contains clauses that include seeking “specific performance”, which means asking a court in Delaware – the US state that has jurisdiction over the deal – to order Musk to carry out the deal at the agreed price of $54.20 a share. Shares were priced at $37.10 in after-hours trading.

“Eventually, the Twitter board will tire of the shenanigans and will file a suit for specific performance in Delaware,” said Brian Quinn, an associate professor at Boston College law school.

Twitter can also demand a $1bn break fee from Musk if he attempts to renege on the agreement. However, signs of a legal strategy for backing out emerged last month when Musk’s lawyers sent a letter to Twitter warning that arefusal to cooperate over the spam account issue represented a “material breach” of the agreement. Musk’s legal team is arguing that failure to provide information about false accounts breaches a covenant in the agreement, a promise to act in a certain way during the sale process, which would allow him to walk away from the deal.

Twitter has subsequently provided data for its 500m daily tweets to reassure Musk but the Washington Post report indicates he has not been satisfied with the results of his team’s subsequent analysis.

Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk

Carl Tobias, the Williams chair in law at the University of Richmond, said the deal being in reported “jeopardy” was the latest iteration of buyer’s remorse for Musk.

“The dustup over bots seemed to be pretextual to avoid having to forfeit the $1bn breakup fee. Thus, for weeks, Musk seemed to be saying that he was not comfortable with the deal and he now appears to be attempting to back out of the deal.”

A Twitter spokesperson said: “Twitter has and will continue to cooperatively share information with Mr Musk to consummate the transaction in accordance with the terms of the merger agreement. We believe this agreement is in the best interest of all shareholders. We intend to close the transaction and enforce the merger agreement at the agreed price and terms.”


Elon Musk Twitter takeover deal in ‘serious jeopardy’ | Twitter | The Guardian

Saturday, July 02, 2022

Mark Zuckerberg Wants to Rule the Future of the Internet. Chuck Schumer Must Stop Him

Mark Zuckerberg Wants to Rule the Future of the Internet. Chuck Schumer Must Stop Him

    The logos of applications, WhatsApp, Messenger, Instagram and facebook belonging to the company Meta are displayed on the screen of an iPhone on February 03, 2022 in Paris, France.
    The logos of applications, WhatsApp, Messenger, Instagram and facebook belonging to the company Meta are displayed on the screen of an iPhone on February 03, 2022 in Paris, France.

    John Oliver’s masterful explanation of tech monopolies—and how Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is blocking legislation to reign them in—is must-watch television for anyone who cares about innovation and competition in America. He explained in detail how Apple, Google, and Amazon use their core products and their market share to crush competitors and enter new businesses while taking advantage of everyday Americans.

    It is easy for anyone to see that it is unfair when Amazon copies a bag that becomes popular on its website and offers its own, identical version through Amazon Basics. That’s one example of “self-preferencing,” the term used to describe the behavior of monopolists who leverage their control of a marketplace to hurt players in that market, that Mr. Oliver expertly described.

    But Oliver didn’t talk about Meta, which is arguably the biggest winner if Senator Chuck Schumer chooses not to lift his de facto hold on the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICO), a bipartisan reform legislation currently in the Senate that would limit the ability of marketplace owners to exploit their power over market participants. For example. Amazon has been accused of copying best sellers in its marketplace and then using it control of the platform to steer traffic to its copy.

    Meta’s platforms—Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—operate marketplaces that appear at first glance to be different from those of Google, Amazon, and Apple. So why is Meta putting unprecedented resources into killing the AICO, which appears to be targeted at the other Big Tech monopolies? Because just like the other Big Tech monopolists, Meta employs self-preferencing to undermine the viability of smaller companies that are dependent on it.

    AICO threatens to unravel some of Meta’s less recognized anti-competitive practices. For example, Facebook blocks users on its chat platforms from communicating with users on other chat platforms. One chat start-up CEO says there’s “very little innovation in chat” because companies like Facebook “lock people into using their product.” You don’t need to take that CEO’s word for it. Facebook actually cut offanother messaging service’s access to its infrastructure, fearing it might become a competitor.

    The deeper reason Meta is fighting AICO tooth and nail is this: AICO would be a barrier to Meta implementing its long term goal to control what Mark Zuckerberg describes as the next internet revolution: the metaverse.

    From 2006 to 2009, I was an advisor to Zuckerberg. I also led my firm’s early investment in Facebook. Since then, I’vewritten and spoken (again and again) about how the company has lost its way, how its culture, business practices, and algorithms undermine public health, democracy, privacy, and competition in our economy.

    Over forty years in tech, I have witnessed the industry morph from a culture of empowering customers with technology to exploiting human weakness. An industry that was once dynamic and revolutionary is now controlled by a half dozen monopolies whose idea of innovation is to add just enough functionality to keep customers locked in. In many ways, Facebook is a poster child for that shift. Its journey, from dorm-room startup to a trillion dollar company, took just sixteen years.


    Video: Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg discusses riding the 'wave of AI innovation,' Reels growth (CNBC)

    Along the way, Facebook pioneered an entirely new industry, giving people genuinely new and useful products. Now, it behaves the way aging monopolists always do—protecting its turf, copying the best ideas from emerging players, and exploiting consumers instead of serving them. I had a front row seat to the transformation, and I’m here to tell you that Zuckerberg must be stopped.

    The transformation of America’s tech industry from an engine of growth to a collection of parasitic monopolies occurred over the past fifteen years, slowly at first, then decisively. It took place at a time when there is almost no oversight of tech companies. Facebook reached the apex of our economy by gobbling up would-be competitors WhatsApp and Instagram before they posed a real threat, allowing it to corner the global market on both messaging and photo-sharing, creating giant moats to extend and protect its monopoly in social media.

    Later, Facebook added a “Stories” feature copied from a smaller competitor, Snapchat, and was able to corner the market on a new way to share photos and videos that was made possible by its ownership of Instagram. Facebook admits to repeating that strategy, try to look and feel more like TikTok in the hope of preventing that emerging competitor from undercutting its social media monopoly.

    Last Fall, Facebook suddenly changed its name to Meta and Zuckerberg gave a demo of the metaverse, which he described as “the next chapter for the internet.” The timing was unexpected and appeared to be rushed. Coming as it did on the heels of whistleblower Frances Haugen’s earth shaking revelations, analysts like me hypothesized that the name change was a desperate effort to change the subject. It largely worked.

    When Zuckerberg says he wants to build “immersive, all-day experiences” and says the metaverse will “become the primary way that we live our lives and spend our time,” what he is really saying is that he will build a platform where every participant, from users to corporate partners to merchants, will be at his mercy. If the AICO is not passed, Meta will be able to undermine the business of any company or manipulate the choices of any user in the metaverse. The philosophy of AICO is that a company should be able to own a marketplace or participate in the marketplace, but not both.

    Meta has an incentive to be open in the early days of the metaverse to attract partners and users, but the history of Facebook suggests that once it achieves critical mass, the company will engage in anticompetitive behavior. The most likely endgame is a metaverse where you can only participate with Oculus VR technology, which Meta already owns; only log-in via a Facebook account, which Meta already owns; only chat with Messenger, which Meta already owns; and pay for coffee through WhatsApp’s new payment feature, which Meta also owns. Meta would likely repeat its past behavior by buying the most promising innovators around the metaverse and then use its market power to bury the rest, just as Google and Amazon have done on their own platforms.

    It is not in the world’s interest for any Big Tech company or companies to control “the next chapter” of the internet. But that is exactly what is likely if we continue to sit on our hands.

    The good news is that Schumer can partially restrain Zuckerberg and the other tech monopolists with the snap of a finger. AICO would spur tech innovation and give consumers better products by cracking down on self-preferencing. The Senate Judiciary Committee has already approved it in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. The bill polls well in red and blue states.

    Senator Schumer can and must call a vote on AICO. In doing so, he has a chance to make the internet better and sharpen America’s technological edge.

    Will he seize the opportunity or will he do Big Tech’s bidding?"

    Thursday, June 23, 2022

    As Midterms Loom, Elections Are No Longer Top Priority for Meta C.E.O.

    As Midterms Loom, Elections Are No Longer Top Priority for Meta C.E.O.

    Mark Zuckerberg, who once said securing elections was “the most important thing,” has shifted Meta’s focus to the metaverse. That may have real-world implications.

    Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive, has been focused on pushing his company into the immersive world of the metaverse.
    Benoit Tessier/Reuters

    Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, made securing the 2020 U.S. election a top priority. He met regularly with an election team, which included more than 300 people from across his company, to prevent misinformation from spreading on the social network. He asked civil rights leaders for advice on upholding voter rights.

    The core election team at Facebook, which was renamed Meta last year, has since been dispersed. Roughly 60 people are now focused primarily on elections, while others split their time on other projects. They meet with another executive, not Mr. Zuckerberg. And the chief executive has not talked recently with civil rights groups, even as some have asked him to pay more attention to the midterm elections in November.

    Safeguarding elections is no longer Mr. Zuckerberg’s top concern, said four Meta employees with knowledge of the situation. Instead, he is focused on transforming his company into a provider of the immersive world of the metaverse, which he sees as the next frontier of growth, said the people, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

    The shift in emphasis at Meta, which also owns Instagram and WhatsApp, could have far-reaching consequences as faith in the U.S. electoral system reaches a brittle point. The hearings on the Jan. 6 Capitol riots have underlined how precarious elections can be. And dozens of political candidates are running this November on the false premise that former President Donald J. Trump was robbed of the 2020 election, with social media platforms continuing to be a key way to reach American voters.

    Election misinformation remains rampant online. This month, “2000 Mules,” a film that falsely claims the 2020 election was stolen from Mr. Trump, was widely shared on Facebook and Instagram, garnering more than 430,000 interactions, according to an analysis by The New York Times. In posts about the film, commenters said they expected election fraud this year and warned against using mail-in voting and electronic voting machines.

    Voters casting their ballots in Portland, Maine, this month.
    Jodi Hilton for The New York Times

    Other social media companies have also pulled back some of their focus on elections. Twitter, which stopped labeling and removing election misinformation in March 2021, has been preoccupied with its $44 billion sale to Elon Musk, three employees with knowledge of the situation said. Mr. Musk has suggested he wants fewer rules about what can and cannot be posted on the service.

    “Companies should be growing their efforts to get prepared to protect the integrity of elections for the next few years, not pulling back,” said Katie Harbath, chief executive of the consulting firm Anchor Change, who formerly managed election policy at Meta. “Many issues, including candidates pushing that the 2020 election was fraudulent, remain and we don’t know how they are handling those.”

    Meta, which along with Twitter barred Mr. Trump from its platforms after the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, has worked over the years to limit political falsehoods on its sites. Tom Reynolds, a Meta spokesman, said the company had “taken a comprehensive approach to how elections play out on our platforms since before the U.S. 2020 elections and through the dozens of global elections since then.”

    According to Mr. Reynolds, Meta has hundreds of people across more than 40 teams focused on election work. With each election, he said, the company was “building teams and technologies and developing partnerships to take down manipulation campaigns, limit the spread of misinformation and maintain industry-leading transparency around political ads and pages.”

    Trenton Kennedy, a Twitter spokesman, said the company was continuing “our efforts to protect the integrity of election conversation and keep the public informed on our approach.” For the midterms, Twitter has labeled the accounts of political candidates and provided information boxes on how to vote in local elections.

    How Meta and Twitter treat elections has implications beyond the United States, given the global nature of their platforms. In Brazil, which is holding a general election in October, President Jair Bolsonaro has recently raised doubts about the country’s electoral process. Latvia, Bosnia and Slovenia are also holding elections in October.

    “People in the U.S. are almost certainly getting the Rolls-Royce treatment when it comes to any integrity on any platform, especially for U.S. elections,” said Sahar Massachi, the executive director of the think tank Integrity Institute and a former Facebook employee. “And so however bad it is here, think about how much worse it is everywhere else.”

    Facebook’s role in potentially distorting elections became evident after 2016, when Russian operatives used the site to spread inflammatory content and divide American voters in the U.S. presidential election. In 2018, Mr. Zuckerberg testified before Congress that election security was his top priority.

    “The most important thing I care about right now is making sure no one interferes in the various 2018 elections around the world,” he said.

    The social network has since become efficient at removing foreign efforts to spread disinformation in the United States, election experts said. But Facebook and Instagram still struggle with conspiracy theories and other political lies on their sites, they said.

    In November 2019, Mr. Zuckerberg hosted a dinner at his home for civil rights leaders and held phone and Zoom conference calls with them, promising to make election integrity a main focus.

    He also met regularly with an election team. More than 300 employees from various product and engineering teams were asked to build new systems to detect and remove misinformation. Facebook also moved aggressively to eliminate toxic content, banning QAnon conspiracy theory posts and groups in October 2020.

    Around the same time, Mr. Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, donated $400 million to local governments to fund poll workers, pay for rental fees for polling places, provide personal protective equipment and other administrative costs.

    The week before the November 2020 election, Meta also froze all political advertising to limit the spread of falsehoods.

    But while there were successes — the company kept foreign election interference off the platform — it struggled with how to handle Mr. Trump, who used his Facebook account to amplify false claims of voter fraud. After the Jan. 6 riot, Facebook barred Mr. Trump from posting. He is eligible for reinstatement in January 2023.

    Last year, Frances Haugen, a Facebook employee-turned-whistle-blower, filed complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission accusing the company of removing election safety features too soon after the 2020 election. Facebook prioritized growth and engagement over security, she said.

    In October, Mr. Zuckerberg announced Facebook would focus on the metaverse. The company has restructured, with more resources devoted to developing the online world.

    The team working on elections now meets regularly with Nick Clegg, Meta’s president for global affairs.
    Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

    Meta also retooled its election team. Now the number of employees whose job is to focus solely on elections is approximately 60, down from over 300 in 2020, according to employees. Hundreds of others participate in meetings about elections and are part of  cross-functional teams, where they work on other issues. Divisions that build virtual reality software, a key component of the metaverse, have expanded.

    Mr. Zuckerberg no longer meets weekly with those focused on election security, said the four employees, though he receives their reports. Instead, they meet with Nick Clegg, Meta’s president of global affairs.

    Several civil right groups said they had noticed Meta’s shift in priorities. Mr. Zuckerberg isn’t involved in discussions with them as he once was, nor are other top Meta executives, they said.

    “I’m concerned,” said Derrick Johnson, president of the N.A.A.C.P., who talked with Mr. Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, Meta’s chief operating officer, ahead of the 2020 election. “It appears to be out of sight, out of mind.” (Ms. Sandberg has announced she will leave Meta this fall.)

    Rashad Robinson, president of Color of Change, another civil rights group, said Ms. Sandberg and Mr. Zuckerberg asked his organization for recommendations in 2020 to thwart election misinformation. Their suggestions were largely ignored, he said, and he hasn’t communicated with either executive in more than a year. He now interacts with Meta’s vice president of civil rights, Roy Austin.

    Meta said Mr. Austin meets every quarter with civil rights leaders and added that it was the only major social media company with an executive in charge of civil rights.

    In May, 130 civil rights organizations, progressive think tanks and public interest groups wrote a letter to Mr. Zuckerberg and the chief executives of YouTube, Twitter, Snap and other platforms. They called for them to take down posts about the lie that Mr. Trump won the 2020 election and to slow the spread of election misinformation before the midterms.

    Yosef Getachew, a director at the nonprofit public advocacy organization Common Cause, whose group studied 2020 election misinformation on social media, said the companies have not responded.

    “The Big Lie is front and center in the midterms with so many candidates using it to pre-emptively declare that the 2022 election will be stolen,” he said, pointing to recent tweets from politicians in Michigan and Arizona who falsely said that dead people cast votes for Democrats. “Now is not the time to stop enforcing against the Big Lie.”