Dalai Lama breaks the chains of reincarnation

Tibetan spiritual leader says Buddhist tradition of reincarnated dalai lamas should end, echoing China’s criticism of feudal successions

RICHARD S EHRLICH, BANGKOK

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/11/article/dalai-lama-breaks-the-chains-of-reincarnation/

In a surprise spiritual reversal, the Dalai Lama said his Tibetan Buddhist tradition of reincarnated dalai lamas “should end now” because the hierarchy created “a feudal system,” a description echoing decades of communist China’s condemnation.

The Dalai Lama’s public statement comes amid attempts by Beijing to control who can be legally recognized as a reincarnated lama in Tibet and what laws they must obey.

“Institutions need to be owned by the people, not by an individual,” the self-exiled 14th Dalai Lama said in a speech at his residence in McLeod Ganj, a small town on the outskirts of Dharamsala, India.

“Like my own institution, the Dalai Lama’s office, I feel it is linked to a feudal system. In 1969, in one of my official statements, I had mentioned that it should continue…but now I feel, not necessarily.

“It should go. I feel it should not be concentrated in a few people only,” he told college students from Bhutan and India on October 25.

“The tradition should end now, as reincarnation has some connection with the feudal system.

“There have been cases of individual lamas who use reincarnation [for personal gains] but never pay attention to study and wisdom,” he said, according to the Times of India.

The Dalai Lama, however, did not express doubt about the concept of reincarnation. Buddhism claims all people are reincarnated even if they are not Buddhists.

Meanwhile, on October 28, US Ambassador for Religious Freedom Samuel Brownback and his delegation met the Dalai Lama in McLeod Ganj.

“The US government supports the Dalai Lama and supports for the succession of the Dalai Lama to be done by the Tibetan Buddhist leadership,” Brownback said, criticizing China’s interference in the procedure.

“The role of picking a successor to the Dalai Lama belongs to the Tibetan Buddhist system, the Dalai Lama, and other Tibetan leaders. It does not belong to anybody else, not any government or any entity,” Brownback said.

Beijing swiftly responded to the US ambassador’s remarks and visit.

“We strongly urge the US side to stop any form of contact with the Dalai clique, stop making irresponsible remarks, stop using Tibet-related issues to interfere in China’s internal affairs, and do more to advance China-US mutual trust and cooperation,” China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang told reporters.

China eyes warily exiled Tibetan populations, including large groups in neighboring India and Nepal, numbering over 150,000 and 20,000 respectively.

During a visit to the Nepalese capital Kathmandu in October, Chinese President Xi Jinping issued an ominous warning, saying “Anyone attempting to split China in any part of the country will end in crushed bodies and shattered bones.”

According to Indian and Nepalese media reports, Xi sought to sign an extradition treaty that aimed to deport all Tibetan refugees in Nepal back to China. Kathmandu, however, declined to sign.

The current 14th Dalai Lama fled his majestic Potala Palace in Lhasa, Tibet in 1959 along with 80,000 Tibetan refugees to escape invading communist Chinese troops. They secured sanctuary in India’s Himalayas.

Since the 1950s, China has repeatedly said Tibetan Buddhism and the institutional power of dalai lamas and other senior clergy was one of the main reasons Tibetans lived in “feudal” poverty, often treated as serfs by Tibetan officials, nobles and lamas.

Tibetan historians said the centuries-old system of reincarnated dalai lamas, panchen lamas and other clergy contributed to repression in Tibet, but Tibetans should have been allowed to fix their homeland instead of submitting to anti-Buddhist Chinese.

“For centuries, Tibet was ruled by feudal serfdom under theocracy,” China’s State Council Information Office reiterated in March.

“Millions of serfs were subjected to cruel exploitation and oppression until [China’s] democratic reform in 1959,” it said in a report entitled Democratic Reform in Tibet, 60 Years On.

“Even as they were aware that feudal serfdom under theocracy was coming to an end, the 14th Dalai Lama and the reactionaries in Tibet’s upper class had no wish to conduct reform.

“Instead, they tried to maintain the system for fear that reform would deprive them of their political and religious privileges, together with their huge economic benefits,” the report said, according to Beijing’s official Xinhua news agency.

Also beginning in the 1950s, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) trained and financed Tibetan guerrillas to conduct scattered assaults against China’s powerful People’s Liberation Army.

The CIA secretly trained ethnic Khampas and other Tibetans in Colorado state’s Rocky Mountains before giving them supplies and parachuting them into Tibet.

The CIA manipulated that small, bloody insurgency until 1972 when President Richard Nixon abruptly ended US armed support and traveled to Beijing to improve ties with Chinese Chairman Mao Zedong.

China’s communists destroyed most of Tibet’s monasteries and shrines during the 1960s and 70s. Thousands of Tibetans reportedly perished from persecution, economic disruption and other policies.

The Dalai Lama repeatedly said he is a Marxist and would accept autonomy for Tibet under China’s domination. But Beijing suspects he is a “splittist” conspiring to achieve independence.

Buddhism arrived in Tibet from India during the seventh century.

“Dalai Lama” is a Mongolian title meaning “Ocean of Wisdom.” Followers also refer to him as, “His Holiness” or “Wish-Fulfilling Gem.”

Dalai lamas and others senior lamas are revered even though they have not achieved the spiritual enlightenment and nirvana of a Buddha.

Instead they are described as incarnations of Avalokitesvara the Bodhisattva of Compassion, who delays achieving nirvana to altruistically help others.

The first dalai lama was born in 1390. Tibetan Buddhists believe this same person has been reincarnated 14 times.

The current Dalai Lama was born on July 6, 1935 shortly after the 13th died. Two years later, a delegation of high lamas searched Tibet for the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation and conducted traditional tests with several children born amid “prophetic signs.”

Clergymen selected an infant named Lhamo Thondup. He picked out, from among various items, things which belonged to the 13th Dalai Lama and performed other feats which they interpreted as evidence of reincarnation.

Today, the 84-year-old Dalai Lama appears jovial and spontaneous, frequently traveling abroad.

Governments Beware: People Are Rising Up All Over the World

NOV 07, 2019 OPINION | TD ORIGINALS

Sonali Kolhatkar

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/governments-beware-people-are-rising-up-all-over-the-world/

Lately there seem to be an unusually large number of mass resistance movements unfolding in countries all over the world. Here in the U.S., Puerto Rico’s recent political turmoil upended the entire local government structure. In Latin America, there have been upheavals over the past few weeks in Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Chile. In the Caribbean, Haiti is experiencing its worst political turmoil since the 2004 ouster of President Jean Bertrand Aristide. On the other side of the planet, Arab nations like Iraq and Lebanon have erupted into mass upheavals. Sudan just a few months ago toppled dictator Omar al-Bashir and now wants his party disbanded. And in Hong Kong, months of mass sustained protests have brought the nation to a standstill. What is happening?

There are common themes running throughout this widespread global uprising. The unrest is marked by a deep dissatisfaction with an economic order that benefits elites over others, combined with outrage against authoritarianism and the use of force to quell dissent. Often these are intertwined, as regimes use force to maintain the unequal economic order and demand public subservience and obedience. Then, a new proposed rule or law— seemingly innocuous at first—lights the spark of protest over long-simmering issues. In the internet age, activists organize with greater ease than before and are highly educated about their plight, giving them a greater ability to document and share abuses far and wide.

I spoke with three people to try to understand the common threads of protest in Chile, Lebanon and Hong Kong, and to explore why and how people have been rising up and organizing in the face of inequality and repression. Mia Dragnic is a sociologist from Chile and a doctoral candidate in Latin American studies at the University of Chile. Dragnic considers herself a “feminist militant” and, in the midst of her current tenure as a visiting scholar at University of California at San Diego, she explained to me in an interview that Chilean President Sebastián Piñera “has not attempted to dialogue with social movements nor changed any of the type of structural factors that have given rise to the current crisis.” Chileans rose up after the announcement of a hike in subway fares, but as is often the case, their response to the fare hike was symptomatic of a broader economic resentment. In fact, although Chile has been lauded for being an economic miracle, it experiences the highest level of inequality among OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) nations.

According to Dragnic, the protesters “are demanding social rights because the Chilean state has privatized those rights and converted itself into a guarantor of the rights of the private sector.” Those “social rights,” she says, include “education, health and housing.” Dragnic recently authored a statement titled “International Community Against the Militarization of Chile,” which was signed by thousands of academics, activists and others. The statement demands Piñera’s resignation and denounces his militarized response to the protests. So far, Piñera’s response has been to oust eight ministers, but he has resolutely refused to resign from his own position. Dragnic pointed out Piñera has “handed power to a military general to handle the protests.” Many fear that such a move is reminiscent of Chile’s violent past, when the U.S. backed a brutal 1973 coup against the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende and helped install the notorious dictator Augusto Pinochet.

Across the world in Lebanon, Prime Minister Saad Hariri was more responsive to dissent than Chile’s Piñera, resigning after just 13 days of sustained mass protests in cities all over the country that included the formation of a human chain. As with the subway fare incident in Chile, outrage among the Lebanese public was initially triggered by the announcement of a tax on the popular texting software WhatsApp, but it reflected a deeper economic discontent.

I recently spoke with Jackson Allers. In our interview, Allers explained to me that Lebanese people are fed up with their government because “the infrastructure has crumbled, [and] the currency, which is artificially pegged to the U.S. dollar, is in absolute disarray right now, and it mirrors what’s happened around the Arab world since 2012.” Allers was referring to the Arab Spring movements in many Middle Eastern nations that comprised a wave of pro-democracy movements demanding democratic reforms. “The final straw was on Oct. 17,” said Allers, “[which] was when the government imposed a tax on WhatsApp phone calls.”

Allers pointed out Lebanon’s crisis was centered on the failures of capitalism, calling the country “a perfect example of a free-market state,” and “crony capitalism gone rampant.” One of the positive hallmarks of this mass movement — unlike previous eras of dissent in Lebanon — is the cross-sectarian nature of protesters. People from nearly every socioeconomic, political and religious sector are joining together. They say Hariri’s resignation is not enough and want to see an overturning of the entire corrupt system.

Elsewhere on the globe, in Hong Kong, which has occupied international headlines for many months now, protesters are also sustaining their activism for the long haul. Although the protests were initially triggered by a controversial extradition plan with China, they are now a response to broader issues of control, authoritarianism and — just as is the case in many other sites of dissent — the economy. Economic inequality in Hong Kong has increased dramatically and is now the greatest it has been in 45 years.

A brutal police response overseen by Chief Executive Carrie Lam has only hardened the resolve of the largely youth-led and seemingly leaderless movement. Joy Ming King is activist born and raised in Hong Kong and an undergraduate student at Wesleyan University. In an interview, he explained to me that activists marked an ongoing ban on face masks in the public realm by donning masks en masse on Halloween while defying authorities. King, who has been participating in the ongoing protests through organizing and direct action both outside and inside Hong Kong through his work in the Lausan Collective, explained that the creative action was an example of “collective enjoyment and rejuvenation, a way to sustain the movement, and that Hong Kongers are organizing largely through the use of digital technology in online forums and without leaders directing most of the actions. The anger that residents feel toward the government is aimed both at the local authorities and at China, which through its special relationship with Hong Kong has attempted to exert greater control over the semi-autonomous city.

The commonalities of why there are so many movements in disparate parts of the world are quite striking. Free-market capitalism has proved time and again to be a failure. The promised riches are distributed far too unequally, and for most they never transpire. The only way to preserve the current social and economic order is by force. And when people have had enough, they meet force with resistance and resilience. These are lessons not just for ordinary people suffering economic injustices, but for the governments that oversee them.

Sonali Kolhatkar

Columnist

Sonali Kolhatkar is a columnist for Truthdig. She also is the founder, host and executive producer of "Rising Up With Sonali," a television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV (Dish Network, DirecTV,…

How Warren’s ‘Medicare for All’ Plan Hurts the Cause

NOV 05, 2019 | TD ORIGINALS

Ilana Novick

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/how-warrens-medicare-for-all-plan-hurts-the-cause/

Presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren agree that the American health care system causes harm to the people it claims to help. They also believe it needs massive change, and that a “Medicare for All” plan is the best avenue to achieve that. Their sharpest disagreements are over how to pay for it, however, and Warren’s funding scheme is getting major criticism from the left.

The Massachusetts senator is adamant that her plan would not impose any taxes on the middle class. According to Tim Higginbotham, a Democratic Socialists of America organizer writing in Jacobin, her plan is “an impossible premise.”

Higginbotham believes Warren’s no-middle-class-taxes claim is dishonest: First, because any Medicare for All plan “will require some form of taxation, direct or indirect, on the broad ‘middle class.’” Second, because her premise ignores the possibility that even with a modest tax increase, Medicare for All will still provide overall health care cost savings in the long run for low- and middle-income families.

Sanders told ABC News that his plan “would raise taxes on the middle class, but [also] would substantially reduce the cost of health care for the average American.” That is because, he explains, “We’re doing away with all premiums, copayments, deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses. So for the overwhelming majority of the American people, they would save, and save substantially, on their health care bills.”

As Vox’s Ezra Klein writes, Warren is operating under the impression “that … a middle-class hike is politically lethal,” while Sanders “has long believed that Americans will support European-style taxes in return for a European-style social welfare state.”

Warren plans to tax employers, which seems like a plus until you consider the ways employers could try to get out of it. In Warren’s vision, a company would pay a head tax—a designated amount in taxes per employee—regardless of the employee’s salary. The tax wouldn’t apply to employees that classify their workers as independent contractors, or smaller businesses with fewer than 50 employees.

Higginbotham goes deeper on the dangers of that approach:

Instead of taxing a certain percentage of an employee’s pay (a payroll tax), Warren’s head tax would charge employers a flat amount no matter the employee’s salary. Seeing as any employer-side tax ultimately comes out of workers’ potential earnings, this is a regressive approach that would disproportionately impact low- and middle-income workers.”

And not taxing employers who use independent contractors also could backfire in a big way—by giving employers an incentive to reclassify their workers away from full-time status and the ability to get benefits in the first place.

Matt Bruenig, president of People’s Policy Project, a progressive think tank, told Politico that Warren’s plan is “most regressive of all the possibilities,” adding that “[a]mong all the ways you can solve this piece of the puzzle, it’s the worst. … Even a payroll tax that’s a flat percentage instead of a flat amount would be more progressive, because if you make twice as much income, you pay twice as much into the system.”

Worse than the tax issue, according to Higginbotham, is “the lack of urgency” in Warren’s plan. “Warren argues that her plan for comprehensive immigration reform could free up $400 billion toward Medicare for All over ten years, while cutting the dangerous military slush fund will free up another $798 billion,” he explains,

Tying Medicare for All to these larger fights, coupled with her use of the word “eventually” in relation to the date by which Medicare for All would implemented, is a sign, to Higginbotham, that Warren is not ready to fight hard for the cause, unlike Sanders, his preferred candidate. According to Higginbotham, “[Sanders] takes every opportunity given to him to straightforwardly explain how Medicare for All will benefit Americans … while pointing his finger straight at those who have financial- and power-based interests in defeating his plan.”

'Outrageous': Sanders Condemns Kentucky GOP for Threatening to Overturn Gubernatorial Election

"In a democracy, we cannot allow politicians to just overrule election results," said the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate. "The will of voters must be respected."

Jake Johnson, staff writer

Thursday, November 07, 2019

Common Dreams

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/07/outrageous-sanders-condemns-kentucky-gop-threatening-overturn-gubernatorial-election

After Kentucky's Senate president suggested the GOP-dominated legislature could ultimately determine the final outcome of the state's close gubernatorial election, Sen. Bernie Sanders Wednesday night accused Republican lawmakers of "threatening to effectively overturn the Kentucky election."

"In a democracy, we cannot allow politicians to just overrule election results," tweeted Sanders, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate. "The will of voters must be respected."

Sanders speechwriter David Sirota said in the presidential campaign's Bern Notice newsletter Wednesday that "the fact that Kentucky's election was even close is a fantastic sign for the 2020 election and Bernie's campaign. It shows that GOP attacks on Bernie and his agenda are likely to backfire—even in traditionally Republican states."

In August, Trump-backed Republican Gov. Matt Bevin released a video condemning what he described as Sanders' "hateful class warfare and communist ideology."

"Kentucky voters... Which side are you on?" Bevin asked. "Do you support socialism or do you still believe that America is the greatest nation on Earth?"

Kentucky's Democratic attorney general Andy Beshear declared victory Tuesday night over Bevin, who officially requested a recanvass of votes Wednesday afternoon.

"We hope that Matt Bevin honors the results of the recanvass, which will show he received fewer votes than Andy Beshear," Eric Hyers, Beshear's campaign manager, said in a statement Wednesday.

According to the New York Times election tracker, Beshear is leading Bevin by more than 5,000 votes with all precincts reporting, and Kentucky's Democratic secretary of state has called the race for Beshear.

But Bevin has refused to concede the race and insisted—without a shred of evidence—that there were "irregularities" in the vote, a claim the Trump White House quickly parroted.

"It's too close to call. I think they're looking at the voter irregularities in some places," White House counselor Kellyanne Conway told Fox News Wednesday.

 As the Times reported, "Bevin's recourse after a recanvassing would be contesting the election with the State Legislature, which is controlled by Republicans."

"There, a group of randomly selected lawmakers (eight from the House, and three from the Senate) would form an elections board that would hear evidence and arguments before arriving at a recommendation that would be forwarded to the entire Legislature," the Times noted. "Lawmakers could end up deciding the contest."

Kentucky's Senate President Robert Stivers, a Republican, hinted at that possibility Tuesday night after Beshear declared victory.

"There's less than one-half of 1 percent, as I understand, separating the governor and the attorney general," Stivers told reporters. "We will follow the letter of the law and what various processes determine."

Stivers pointed to Section 90 of the Kentucky Constitution, which states: "Contested elections for Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall be determined by both Houses of the General Assembly, according to such regulations as may be established by law."

The Republican lawmaker's comments sparked alarm, with observers warning the Kentucky GOP could be preparing to steal an election that didn't go their way.

"Pay attention," tweeted Vox's David Roberts. "They're going to try to steal the Kentucky election right out in the open, in front of everyone."

'Huge Win for Democracy': Nationwide Celebrations as NYC Residents Approve Ranked-Choice Voting Ballot Measure

With the new system, said one supporter, "candidates will have to knock on the door of not just a certain plurality, but on the diverse doors of NYC's mosaic majority."

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

Wednesday, November 06, 2019

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/06/huge-win-democracy-nationwide-celebrations-nyc-residents-approve-ranked-choice

Voting rights advocates celebrated a "huge win for democracy" Tuesday after New Yorkers approved a ballot measure that would establish ranked-choice voting in the nation's most populous city.

With 90% reporting as of Wednesday morning, New York City's Ballot Question 1 won approval from 73.5% of voters.

NYC's ranked-choice voting (RCV) measure was supported by a number of advocacy groups, politicians, and even The New York Times editorial board, which called the question the "most exciting proposal" of the five measures considered by city voters Tuesday.

In an RCV system—also known as an instant runoff voting system—voters rank candidates for each office in order of preference on their ballots. If no candidate secures a majority of first-choice votes, an elimination process is triggered and continues until one candidate has majority support.

RCV has been growing in popularity across the United States in recent years. It is used in local and party election in some places around the country and statewide in Maine.

In addition to establishing RCV in primary and special elections for all local offices beginning in 2021, the ballot measure will "increase the time between a city office vacancy and the special election to fill it from 45 days (60 for mayor) to 80 days" and "change the timeline for city council redistricting to complete it prior to city council nominating petition signature collection."

Celebrating the ballot measure's passage on Tuesday night, Common Cause NY executive director Susan Lerner said that RCV "is the simple solution that puts power back in the hands of the people where it belongs. We look forward to working with our diverse partners and elected officials to educate New Yorkers on how this important reform will work in the local 2021 elections and beyond."

The RCV provision garnered support from New Yorkers and national advocates alike. Backers included Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)—a widely popular freshman congresswoman who represents parts of the Bronx and Queens—2020 Democratic presidential primary candidate and city resident Andrew Yang, Rep. Nydia Velasquez (D-N.Y.), state Attorney General Letitia James, Democratic state Sen. Julia Salazar, NYC Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, and actor, activist, and city resident Cynthia Nixon.

The advocacy group FairVote, which fights for fair elections and supports RCV, declared on Twitter: "This is huge for the #RankedChoiceVoting movement!"

Supporters of an RCV system argue that it pushes candidates to focus on engaging voters rather than negative campaigning. FairVote president Rob Richie told Politico, "You've got to be, I think, a better candidate."

"You as a candidate have a lot more reasons to have conversations and engagements with people," he said. "The candidates that run traditional campaigns that involve using money and not using people have not done as well."

Rod Townsend, president of the Stonewall Democratic Club of NYC, said in statement ahead of the vote Tuesday that "it's been too easy for candidates to ignore marginalized communities, including LGBTQ voters, because they didn't think they needed every vote to win. Ranked-choice voting ends that mindset because with RCV, every vote matters."

"With ranked-choice voting, marginalized communities will be engaged by every candidate," Townsend added. "Candidates will have to knock on the door of not just a certain plurality, but on the diverse doors of NYC's mosaic majority."

Amazon's Major Money Dump in Seattle's City Council Election Seen as 'Dangerous and Ominous Development'

"It's supposed to be a democratic process and it's not a democratic process when Amazon can contribute that much to basically a small election."

Eoin Higgins, staff writer

Wednesday, November 06, 2019

Common Dreams

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/06/amazons-major-money-dump-seattles-city-council-election-seen-dangerous-and-ominous

An attempt by Amazon to fill the Seattle city council with members more supportive of the company than the current progressive slate was called a chilling development for city government by critics of the move after Tuesday's election.

Socialist councilor Kshama Sawant, one of the company's top targets, told The Guardian that her race had been uphill and that the power of a massive corporation like Amazon stacked against her campaign had been difficult to overcome.

"We have run a historic grassroots campaign, with working people, community members rejecting Amazon and billionaires' attempt to buy this election, and that doesn't mean we're going to win every battle against the billionaires," said Sawant. "What matters is the political clarity that the billionaires are not on our side and that this is going to be a struggle."

Seattle is still waiting for the final results in the race—Washington has a mail-in voting system that makes final counts unavailable for days after voting—but as of Wednesday, it looked likely that Sawant and fellow socialist Shaun Scott were headed for defeat against Amazon-backed candidates Egan Orion and Alex Pederson, respectively. Neither Scott nor Sawant had conceded at press time. 

Amazon dumped cash into the race via a super PAC, according to Bloomberg:

Amazon, the biggest employer in Seattle, contributed $1.45 million to a business-backed political-action committee to help elect council members Amazon views as more favorable to its interests and those of the business community.

The group, called the Civic Alliance for a Sound Economy, backed six new candidates for seven open council seats. Three of them are trailing in early results. It also backed one incumbent, who is leading her race. Two positions were not up for election this year.

In a Medium post from November 1, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), whose district includes much of Seattle, said she was unsettled by the company's involvement in the election.

"I am extremely disturbed by the unprecedented amount of money that Amazon has dumped into Seattle City Council elections—not just a thumb, but a fistful of cash, on the scales of democracy," wrote Jayapal.

Justice Democrats communications director Waleed Shahid noted the insidious nature of that corporate influence in a city where campaign finance is set up to avoid such spending.

"Amazon's attempt to buy Seattle's city council even as the city has a public financing system is a dangerous and ominous development unfolding in one of the bluest parts of the country," Shahid tweeted.

Journalist Walker Bragman, on Twitter, called the results an example of a broken political system. 

"What happened in Seattle is chilling," said Bragman. "Americans will either beat the ruling class at the ballot box or in the streets. This inequality is unsustainable."

Seattle voter Sarah Champernowne, a Sawant supporter, said that Amazon's involvement in the race was anti-democratic.

"It's supposed to be a democratic process and it's not a democratic process when Amazon can contribute that much to basically a small election," said Champernowne.

Time to 'Break Facebook Up,' Sanders Says After Leaked Docs Show Social Media Giant 'Treated User Data as a Bargaining Chip'

"As I have been saying the privacy frame is bullshit," said another critic. "Facebook is all about criminal behavior to monopolize ad money."

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

Wednesday, November 06, 2019

Common Dreams

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/06/time-break-facebook-sanders-says-after-leaked-docs-show-social-media-giant-treated

After NBC News on Wednesday published a trove of leaked documents that show how Facebook "treated user data as a bargaining chip with external app developers," White House hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders declared that it is time "to break Facebook up."

When British investigative journalist Duncan Campbell first shared the trove of documents with a handful of media outlets including NBC News in April, journalists Olivia Solon and Cyrus Farivar reported that "Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg oversaw plans to consolidate the social network's power and control competitors by treating its users' data as a bargaining chip, while publicly proclaiming to be protecting that data."

With the publication Wednesday of nearly 7,000 pages of records—which include internal Facebook emails, web chats, notes, presentations, and spreadsheets—journalists and the public can now have a closer look at exactly how the company was using the vast amount of data it collects when it came to bargaining with third parties.

Technically still under protective order in a California state civil lawsuit that the startup app developer Six4Three filed against Facebook in 2015, the leaked documents from the case include 3,799 pages of sealed exhibits, 2,737 pages of exhibits, 415 pages of related notes and summaries, and a 20-page memorandum (pdfs). More than 1,000 pages are labeled "highly confidential."

According to Solon and Farivar of NBC:

Taken together, they show how Zuckerberg, along with his board and management team, found ways to tap Facebook users' data—including information about friends, relationships, and photos—as leverage over the companies it partnered with. In some cases, Facebook would reward partners by giving them preferential access to certain types of user data while denying the same access to rival companies.

For example, Facebook gave Amazon special access to user data because it was spending money on Facebook advertising. In another case the messaging app MessageMe was cut off from access to data because it had grown too popular and could compete with Facebook.

All the while, Facebook planned to publicly frame these moves as a way to protect user privacy, the documents show.

Open Markets Institute fellow Matt Stoller tweeted in response to NBC's report Wednesday: "As I have been saying the privacy frame is bullshit. Facebook is all about criminal behavior to monopolize ad money."

The document dump comes as Facebook and Zuckerberg are facing widespread criticism over the company's political advertising policy, which allows candidates for elected office to lie in the ads they pay to circulate on the platform. It also comes as 47 state attorneys general, led by Letitia James of New York, are investigating the social media giant for antitrust violations.

The Week's national correspondent Ryan Cooper, who also responded to NBC's report on Twitter, wrote that "there are some practical (but not insurmountable) problems with putting antitrust regulations on say, Amazon. [But] Facebook you could just shut it down and the world would be a far better place."

The call from Sanders (I-Vt.) Wednesday to break up Facebook follows similar but less definitive statements from the senator.

One of Sanders' rivals in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary race, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), released her plan to "Break Up Big Tech" in March. Zuckerberg is among the opponents of Warren's proposal, which also targets other major technology companies like Amazon and Google.