CrowdTangle saw its team disbanded in 2021, new user registrations cut off in 2022 and now the site will officially shut down on August 14, the Wall Street Journal reports. Journalists and academics alike have used CrowdTangle to study the flow of content on Facebook and Instagram, including conspiracy theories and fake news. Meta, which bought the company in 2016, choosing to shutter the company is an entirely unsurprising move given it has been the source for many of the social media conglomerate’s failings.
A tool called Meta Content Library will replace CrowdTangle, but only academics and nonprofit researchers can use it. That’s right — for-profit news organizations can’t apply for access to what sounds like a watered-down version of CrowdTangle. Meta claims that its Content Library — which is the company’s answer for the European Union’s Digital Markets Act — has new features like data on public comments and searching content based on views. However, early testers found it lacked geography-based activity data or the ability to download data from public posts.
Meta and CEO Mark Zuckerberg certainly benefit from limiting how much people — especially reporters — can view about their doings. We recently published a deep dive into Zuckerberg’s dangerous decisions, including going against warnings from experts and personally intervening to block a ban on Instagram’s plastic surgery filters. Other horrors under his watch include Instagram’s recommendation algorithm promoting content featuring child sexual exploitation and regularly dismissing requests from top lieutenants to further prioritize safety. Then, in court, his lawyers have claimed he should hold no responsibility for the lawsuits involving harm caused by Meta’s platforms.
On Thursday, Crowdtangle’s former co-founder and CEO Brandon Silverman criticized the Meta’s decision to shut down the service. In a blog post, Silverman said that turning off Crowdtangle 12 weeks before the US Presidential election was “incredibly irresponsible.” He added, however, that he was optimistic that the legacy of Crowdtangle would help to “inspire a permanent set of regulations that make real-time access to public data a legal requirement and an ongoing part of how we manage the internet responsibly & collaboratively.”
Update, March 14 2024, 8:24 PM ET: This story has been updated to include Silverman’s reaction to Meta’s decision to kill Crowdtangle.
This article contains affiliate links; if you click such a link and make a purchase, we may earn a commission.
Yesterday Google outlined the changes it will make to comply with the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) that goes into effect starting today. One important detail it left out, however, was whether it would charge developers who directed users outside the Play Store to sideload apps — and if so, how much.
Now, Google has revealed that it will indeed charge developers even if they don’t use the Play Store, just like Apple did with the App Store. Per new details found in the Play Console help section, the company will charge two new fees:
An initial acquisition fee of 10% for in-app purchases or 5% for subscriptions for two years. This represents the value Play provided in facilitating initial user acquisition.
An ongoing services fee of 17% for in-app purchases or 7% for subscriptions. This covers ongoing Play services like parental controls, security, fraud prevention, and app updates.
Developers can opt out of ongoing fees after two years if users agree, but ongoing Play services will no longer apply. “Since users acquired the app through Play with the expectation of services such as parental controls, security scanning, fraud prevention, and continuous app updates, discontinuation of services requires user consent as well,” Google stated.
Google included the following chart to show how the fees will apply to a hypothetical “Fantastiq App”:
Google
With this, Google is taking a similar approach to Apple, which reduced App Store commissions but introduced new fees. Namely, Apple tacked on on a new 3 percent “payment processing” fee for transactions that go through its store. And a new “core technology fee” will charge a flat €0.50 fee for all app downloads, regardless of whether they come from the App Store or a third-party website, after the first 1 million installations.
Google is justifying the fees by touting the value it provides in the Android ecosystem: “Play’s fees support our investment in Android and Google Play and reflect the value provided by Android and Play, including enabling us to distribute Android for free and provide the continuously growing suite of tools and services that help developers build successful businesses, all while keeping our platforms safe and secure for billions of users worldwide.”
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney already blasted Google’s post about DMA compliance yesterday, before the new fees were even made public. “Google announced its malicious compliance plans for the European DMA law… it looks like their illegal anti-steering policy will be replaced by a new Google Tax on web transactions. We’ll likely soon learn how he and other developers react to the new fees.
Big Tech companies are coming out of the woodwork to challenge the European Commission’s new enforcement regime for digital competition with TikTok and Meta Platforms filing legal appeals this week.
Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta and Microsoft are all considered “gatekeeper” companies under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), the European Union’s new digital rulebook, for 22 core online services they run — everything from app stores and social networks to messaging services and online marketplaces.
Meta on Wednesday was the first to say it had filed a legal challenge to the EU’s revamped enforcement regime before the European Union’s General Court, disputing EU officials’ decision to bring its Marketplace and Messenger services in scope of the new digital competition rulebook.
TikTok’s owner ByteDance on Thursday argued its video-sharing platform was wrongly labeled as a social network under the new law. The firm also took issue with being targeted as a digital giant when it sees itself as a challenger to the other “gatekeeper” companies that have a vast ecosystem of digital services.
The six targeted firms had until November 16 to file their legal paperwork. Some already indicated that they aren’t happy with the new labels the Commission has given them, according to filings published online in recent weeks.
Already some companies are making changes to how they run their businesses in Europe. Facebook and Instagram will offer paid ad-free subscriptions in the EU. Google has been opening up data sharing as part of German and Italian antitrust cases.
Their other option is to convince European Union judges to overturn the Commission’s decisions.
But we don’t understand!
Companies designated as gatekeepers can ask the EU’s General Court to cancel individual decisions. That’s precisely what Meta and TikTok did in their filings Wednesday.
Alfonso Lamadrid, a partner at law firm Garrigues, said they could claim that they don’t understand why certain services were caught by the law and that EU officials failed to give “sufficient reasoning.”
They could also file appeals — either now or later — on the Commission’s probes to determine whether Apple’s iMessage, along with Microsoft’s Bing search engine, its Edge web browser and its advertising service, should be considered core platform services. There’s a February 6 deadline to wrap those up. Another probe into Apple’s iPadOS has until September 6 next year.
Lamadrid — who has worked with Google on antitrust challenges including the tech giant’s recent court appeal against an antitrust fine for its shopping service — said he doesn’t think Big Tech firms “will be taking the decision to appeal very lightly.”
Who might grumble?
Meta and TikTok aren’t the only gatekeepers unhappy with the Commission’s decisions so far.
Meta isn’t the only gatekeeper unhappy with the Commission’s decisions so far | Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Apple previously argued with the Commission that its services shouldn’t be subject to the new rules, according to the Commission documents.
Apple tried unsuccessfully to convince officials that its App Store comes in five separate versions for different devices and that its Safari browser in three, which would reduce the number of active users for each service. Apple didn’t respond to a request for comment.
ByteDance told the Commission earlier that its viral video app is “about content discovery, not about establishing or maintaining real-world connections,” according to an EU decision published last month.
Telecoms companies are also unhappy. They told the Commission it should designate Apple’s iMessage as a core platform service that needs to follow DMA curbs, according to a letter to Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton seen by POLITICO.
What are the others saying?
Microsoft is classified as a gatekeeper for its social network LinkedIn and Windows PC operating service. Microsoft spokesperson Robin Koch said in September that the tech giant “accepts our designation as a gatekeeper under the Digital Markets Act and will continue to work with the European Commission” to meet its obligations.
Alphabet — which has eight core platform services targeted under the DMA, including Google Search and web browser Chrome — said in September it will “work closely with the European Commission and other stakeholders” and would “make changes that meet the new requirements while protecting the user experience.”
Alphabet — which has eight core platform services targeted under the DMA, including Google Search and web browser Chrome — said in September it will “work closely with the European Commission and other stakeholders” and would “make changes that meet the new requirements while protecting the user experience.” | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Amazon’s marketplace and advertising businesses were both labeled as core platform services under the DMA in September. The company said at the time it is “committed to delivering services that meet our customers’ requirements within Europe’s evolving regulatory landscape” and would “work constructively with the European Commission as we finalize our implementation plans.”
Amazon earlier this year did challenge another digital label in the EU, asking a court to cancel the Commission’s declaration that it was a Very Large Online Platform.
But with just four months to go now until the rules are enforceable, any challenge could just poke the bureaucratic bear.
“This is now an important moment in time for compliance,” Lamadrid said, “so it’s not ideal to have pending court proceedings while you’re trying to negotiate with the Commission on compliance… I don’t think it’s in the company’s best interest to antagonize the Commission.”
This article was updated on November 16 to include recent developments.
Lionel Barber is former editor of the Financial Times (2005-20) and Brussels bureau chief (1992-98)
Nobody does “No” better than the French. Charles De Gaulle said “Non” twice to Britain’s bid to join the European Economic Community; Jacques Chirac said “Non” to the Iraq war; and Emmanuel Macron this week gave a thumbs down to Fiona Scott Morton, the American Yale academic selected for the post of top economist at the EU’s powerful competition directorate in Brussels.
L’affaire Scott Morton may seem trivial in comparison to the (still unresolved) debate over Britain’s place in Europe or armed conflict in the Middle East, but the French veto of the first foreigner to take up the post says an awful lot about the European Union’s current paranoia about America’s influence and power.
As Macron has pushed a vision of Europe that stands up to the U.S., resisting pressure to become “America’s followers,” as he put it in April, such thinking has strengthened in Brussels.
The Scott Morton fiasco brings back memories of a lunch in Brussels exactly 30 years ago when some officials suspected the U.S. was engaged in an Anglo-Saxon plot to sabotage their plans for economic and monetary union. “Remember James Jesus Angleton,” said a stone-faced Belgian bureaucrat, invoking the name of the legendary, obsessive CIA counterintelligence officer at the height of the Cold War.
Professor Scott Morton was selected as the best candidate in open competition. She enjoyed the backing of Margrethe Vestager, the Danish EU competition commissioner often described as the most powerful antitrust regulator in the world. She also had support from Ursula von der Leyen, German president of the European Commission, whose leadership during the Ukraine war and the COVID pandemic has won widespread praise on both sides of the Atlantic.
All this counted for naught. Despite her distinguished academic pedigree, Scott Morton, a former Obama administration antitrust official, worked for Apple, Amazon and Microsoft in competition cases in the U.S. The notion her background somehow disqualified her for the job shows George W. Bush was wrong when he complained the French had no word for “entrepreneur.” Today’s problem is that Paris has no understanding of the term “poacher turned gamekeeper.”
As Carl Bildt, former Swedish prime minister, tweeted: “Regrettable that narrow-minded opposition in some EU countries has led to this. She was reportedly the most competent candidate, and a knowledge of the U.S. and its antitrust policies should certainly not have been a disadvantage.”
Now, President Macron’s opposition to the appointment has attracted a good deal of support in the Commission, in the European Parliament and among European trade unions. Cristiano Sebastiani, head of Renouveau & Démocratie, a trade union representing EU employees, said senior EU officials should “be invested, believe and contribute towards the European project. The very logic of our statute is that an EU official can never go back to being an ordinary citizen.”
France’s veto of Professor Scott Morton is de facto a veto of Vestager, who was almost untouchable during her first term as competition commissioner between 2014-19. She won kudos for investigating, fining and bringing lawsuits against major multinationals including Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Qualcomm, and Gazprom. More controversially, at least in Paris and Berlin, she vetoed the planned merger between Alstom and Siemens, two industrial giants intent on creating a European champion.
Vestager’s second term has been a different story. She has suffered reverses in the courts which overturned punitive fines against Apple and Qualcomm. Then, although she ranks as a vice-president of the Commission, Vestager found herself challenged by a nominal underling in the shape of Thierry Breton, a former top French industrialist put in charge of the EU’s internal market.
Both have battled over the policing of the EU’s Digital Markets Act and over policy on artificial intelligence, a proxy fight for influence overall in Brussels.
Vestager and Breton have battled over the policing of the EU’s Digital Markets Act and over policy on artificial intelligence | Olivier Hoslet/EPA/AFP via Getty Images
Breton favors the so-called AI Pact, an effort to bring forward parts of the EU’s draft Artificial Intelligence Act. This would ban some AI cases, curb “high-risk” applications, and impose checks on how Google, Microsoft and others develop the emerging technology.
By contrast, Vestager favors a voluntary code of conduct focused on generative AI such as ChatGPT. This could be developed at a global level, in partnership with the U.S., rather than waiting for the two years it will take to secure legislative passage of Breton’s AI Pact.
So what’s the solution? If Europe is to have any chance of prevailing, so the argument goes, member states must take a far harder-nosed attitude to competition policy. This leads in turn to the creation of national or pan-European champions at the expense of crackdowns on subsidies and other anti-competitive behavior. In short, the very liberal policies designed to protect the single market’s level playing field and embodied by the fighting Viking.
For those who occasionally wonder how power has shifted inside the EU since Brexit took the U.K. out of the equation, it is proof indeed that “liberal Europe” is on a losing streak.
In the United States, TikTok is a favorite punching ball for lawmakers who’ve compared the Chinese-owned app to “digital fentanyl” and say it should be banned.
Now that hostility is spreading to Europe, where fears about children’s safety and reports that TikTok spied on journalists using their IP locations are fueling a backlash against the video-sharing app used by more than 250 million Europeans.
As TikTok Chief Executive Shou Zi Chew heads to Brussels on Tuesday to meet with top digital policymaker Margrethe Vestager amid a wider reappraisal of EU ties with China, his company faces a slew of legal, regulatory and security challenges in the bloc — as well as a rising din of public criticism.
One of the loudest critics is French President Emmanuel Macron, who has called TikTok “deceptively innocent” and a cause of “real addiction” among users, as well as a source of Russian disinformation. Such comments have gone hand-in-hand with aggressive media coverage in France, including Le Parisien daily’s December 29 front page calling TikTok “A real danger for the brains of our children.”
New restrictions may be in order. During a trip to the United States in November, Macron told a group of American investors and French tech CEOs that he wanted to regulate TikTok, according to two people in the room. TikTok denies it is harmful and says it has measures to protect kids on the app.
While it wasn’t clear what rules Macron was referring to — his office declined to comment — the remarks added to a darkening tableau for TikTok. In addition to two EU-wide privacy probes that are set to wrap up in coming months, TikTok has to contend with extensive new requirements on content moderation under the bloc’s new digital rulebook, the DSA, from mid-2023 — as well as the possibility of being caught up in the bloc’s new digital competition rulebook, the Digital Markets Act.
In answers to emailed questions, France’s digital minister Jean-Noel Barrot said that France would rely on the DSA and DMA to regulate TikTok at an EU level, though he “remained vigilant on these ever-evolving models” of ad-supported social media. Barrot added that he “never failed to maintain a level of pressure appropriate to the stakes of the DSA” in meetings with TikTok executives.
Ahead of Chew’s visit to Brussels, Thierry Breton, the bloc’s internal market commissioner, warned him about the need to “respect the integrality of our rules,” according to comments the commissioner made in Spain, reported by Reuters. A spokesperson for Vestager said she aimed to “review how the company was preparing for complying with its (possible) obligations under our regulation.”
That said, the probes TikTok is facing deal with suspected violations that have already taken place. If Ireland’s data regulator, which leads investigations on behalf of other EU states, finds that TikTok has broken the bloc’s privacy rulebook, the General Data Protection Regulation, fines could amount to up to 4 percent of the firm’s global turnover. Penalties can be even higher under the DSA, which starts applying to big platforms in mid-2023.
Spying fears
And yet, having to fork over a few million euros could be the least of TikTok’s troubles in Europe, as some lawmakers here are following their U.S. peers to call for much tougher restrictions on the app amid fears that data from TikTok will be used for spying.
TikTok is under investigation for sending data on EU users to China — one of two probes being led by Ireland. Reports that TikTok employees in China used TikTok data to track the movements of two Western journalists only intensified spying fears, especially in privacy-conscious Germany. (TikTok acknowledged the incident and fired four employees over what they said was unauthorized access to user data.)
One of the loudest critics is French President Emmanuel Macron, who has called TikTok “deceptively innocent” and a cause of “real addiction” among users | Pool photo by Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images
Citing a “lack of data security and data protection” as well as data transfers to China, the digital policy spokesman for Germany’s Social Democratic Party group in the Bundestag said that the U.S. ban on TikTok for federal employees’ phones was “understandable.”
“I think it makes sense to also critically examine applications such as TikTok and, if necessary, to take measures. I would therefore advise civil servants, but also every citizen, not to install untrustworthy services and apps on their smartphones,” Jens Zimmermann added.
Maximilian Funke-Kaiser, digital policy spokesman for the liberal FDP group in German parliament, went even further raising the prospect of a full ban on use of TikTok on government phones. “In view of the privacy and security risks posed by the app and the app’s far-reaching access rights, I consider the ban on TikTok on the work phones of U.S. government officials to be appropriate. Corresponding steps should also be examined in Germany.”
For Moritz Körner, a centrist lawmaker in European Parliament, the potential risks linked to TikTok are far greater than with Twitter due to the former’s larger user base — at least five times as many users as Twitter in Europe — and the fact that up to a third of its users are aged 13-19.
“The China-app TikTok should be under the special surveillance of the European authorities,” he wrote in an email. “The fight between autocratic and democratic systems will also be fought via digital platforms. Europe has to wake up.”
In Switzerland, lawmakers called earlier this month for a ban on officials’ phones.
Call for a ban
So far, though, no European government or public body has followed the U.S. in banning TikTok usage on officials’ phones. In response to questions from POLITICO, a spokesperson for the European Commission — which previously advised its employees against using Meta’s WhatsApp — wrote that any restriction on TikTok usage for EU civil servants would “require a political decision and will be based on the careful assessment of data protection cybersecurity concerns, and others.”
The spokesperson also pointed out that “there are no official Commission accounts” on TikTok.
A spokesperson for the European Parliament said its services “continuously monitor” for cybersecurity issues, but that “due to the nature of security matters, we don’t comment further on specific platforms.”
POLITICO reached out to cybersecurity agencies for the EU, the U.K. and Germany to ask if they had or were planning any restrictions or recommendations having to do with TikTok. None flagged any specific restrictions, which doesn’t mean there aren’t any. In Germany, for example, officials who use iPhones can’t use or download TikTok in the section of their phone where confidential data can be accessed.
The European Commission has previously advised its employees against using Meta’s WhatsApp | Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP via Getty Images
For Hamburg’s data protection agency, one of 16 in Germany’s federal system, restricting TikTok on official phones would be a good idea.
“Based on what we know from the available sources, we share, among other things,the concerns of the U.S. government that you mentioned and would therefore welcome it appropriate for government agencies in the EU to refrain from using TikTok,” a spokesperson said.
This suggests that the most immediate public threat for TikTok in Europe is privacy-related. Of the two probes being conducted by Ireland’s privacy regulator, the one looking into child safety on the app is the closest to wrapping up, according to a spokesperson for the Irish Data Protection Commission.
Depending on the outcome of discussions between EU privacy regulators — the child safety probe is likely to trigger a dispute resolution mechanism — TikTok could face new requirements to verify age in the EU. The other probe, looking into TikTok’s transfers of data to China, is likely to wrap up around mid-year or toward the end of 2023 if a dispute is triggered, the spokesperson said.
Antoaneta Roussi contributed reporting.
[ad_2]
Nicholas Vinocur, Clothilde Goujard, Océane Herrero and Louis Westendarp
