Policy

New evidence in Capitol rioter case exposes the role of Facebook Messenger

In private Facebook messages, an Oath Keepers leader outlined explicit plans for an "insurrection."

New evidence in Capitol rioter case exposes the role of Facebook Messenger

On Wednesday, the DOJ released a slew of private Facebook messages sent and received by Kelly Meggs, the Florida leader of the militia group the Oath Keepers.

Photo: Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images

In the months since the attack on the U.S. Capitol, Facebook has talked at length about how it plans to keep Groups and News Feed from turning into toxic swirls of political vitriol. But new evidence presented by the Department of Justice in a case against one of the rioters raises questions about the role Facebook Messenger played leading up to the riot and how the company polices that platform.

On Wednesday, the DOJ released a slew of private Facebook messages sent and received by Kelly Meggs, the Florida leader of the militia group Oath Keepers, as part of a case in which Meggs is accused of conspiring to stop Congress from certifying the election.

In the messages, which begin on Nov. 9, shortly following the election, and grow increasingly detailed in the days leading up to the riot, Meggs describes having formed an "alliance" with the Proud Boys and the Three Percenters and responds to one of former President Trump's tweets, in which Trump suggested that Jan. 6 "will be wild." "He called us all to the Capitol and wants us to make it wild !!! Sir Yes Sir !!!" one of Meggs's Facebook messages reads.

Meggs also outlines a plan to "come in behind antifa and beat the hell out of them" and later describes Jan. 6 as "when we are all in DC to insurrection [sic]."

The obvious calls for violence would appear to be clear violations of Facebook's terms. Months before the election, Facebook had also announced a ban on militia groups, including Oath Keepers. But both Meggs and his messages, it appears, escaped Facebook's notice.

A Facebook spokesperson said Meggs' account was disabled "some time ago," though the DOJ's evidence includes messages sent as recently as Jan. 4.

Facebook Messenger has always been a tricky product for the company to moderate. On one hand, users and civil liberties advocates recoil at the idea of Facebook reading private messages. On the other, if Facebook didn't moderate Messenger at all, it could become a free-for-all (some might argue it already is).

In 2018, CEO Mark Zuckerberg talked in an interview about how Facebook uses automated systems to actively moderate private messages, describing a case in Myanmar where users were sending Muslim users messages in Facebook Messenger claiming a Buddhist uprising was coming, then sending similar messages about a Muslim uprising to Buddhist users. "That's the kind of thing where I think it is clear that people were trying to use our tools in order to incite real harm," Zuckerberg said. "Now, in that case, our systems detect that that's going on. We stop those messages from going through. But this is certainly something that we're paying a lot of attention to."

Just a year after that interview, though, Zuckerberg announced the company would be transitioning Messenger to end-to-end encryption, making Messenger content invisible even to Facebook. The announcement quickly raised alarm bells about how Facebook would find, for instance, child sexual abuse material, which it currently reports en masse to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Facebook has said that the project, which is still ongoing, will take years.

But the DOJ's findings highlight the shortcomings of Facebook's moderation of even unencrypted and highly explicit messages on Messenger. (Facebook isn't the only messaging platform mentioned in the disclosures. Meggs' Signal messages are part of the filing too). The disclosures come just a day after another report from the group Avaaz showed how hundreds of militia and extremist groups continued to grow on Facebook despite the platform's policies.

The DOJ's evidence also shines a spotlight on the limits of Facebook's crackdown on militia groups like the Oath Keepers. While the company did ban Pages, Groups and Instagram accounts linked to militia movements, it didn't ban the individual profiles of Facebook users who identify with those groups, unless they were the admins of those Pages or Groups or they had repeatedly shared content supporting a banned militia group. Facebook said it has so far disabled more than 25,000 individual users' accounts under that policy. Facebook did not ban praise of those militia groups outright, however, as it's done with foreign extremist organizations like ISIS and Al Qaeda. In its initial blog post, Facebook said it would "allow people to post content that supports these movements and groups, so long as they do not otherwise violate our content policies."

Brian Fishman, the head of counterterrorism and dangerous organizations policy at Facebook, recently explained how the structure of domestic and foreign extremist groups differ during an interview with Protocol, and why he feels that necessitates a different approach from Facebook. "It's not just organizations," Fishman said, referring to the threat of domestic extremism. "It's not just structured ideologies, even. It includes folks that are haphazard adherents to various conspiracy theories. It extends from people engaged primarily in the political process to folks that are explicitly rejecting political resolution of disputes, and all of that was represented on the mall on Jan. 6."

On Thursday, members of Congress will have a chance to question Zuckerberg about this and other issues when he appears alongside Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai at a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. According to his prepared remarks, Zuckerberg plans to tell the committee, "The Capitol attack was a horrific assault on our values and our democracy, and Facebook is committed to assisting law enforcement in bringing the insurrectionists to justice."

Hybrid work has some distinct advantages when it comes to onboarding.

Photo: LogMeIn

Jo Deal is the chief human resources officer at LogMeIn. She is responsible for leading global people strategy with a focus on attracting, developing and engaging talent.

The desire for change that sprung up during the pandemic resulted in the highest attrition levels in decades and a fierce war for talent playing out in the market. The Great Resignation forced managers to suddenly make hiring their top priority, and recruitment partners became everyone’s best friend as leaders scrambled to replace key roles within their teams.

Keep Reading Show less
Jo Deal
Jo Deal serves as LogMeIn’s Chief Human Resources Officer. She is responsible for leading global people strategy with a focus on attracting, developing and engaging world class talent by expanding LogMeIn’s reputation as one of tech’s most desirable career destinations, and by providing a collaborative learning environment where employees can grow their careers.
Sponsored Content

A CCO’s viewpoint on top enterprise priorities in 2022

The 2022 non-predictions guide to what your enterprise is working on starting this week

As Honeywell’s global chief commercial officer, I am privileged to have the vantage point of seeing the demands, challenges and dynamics that customers across the many sectors we cater to are experiencing and sharing.

This past year has brought upon all businesses and enterprises an unparalleled change and challenge. This was the case at Honeywell, for example, a company with a legacy in innovation and technology for over a century. When I joined the company just months before the pandemic hit we were already in the midst of an intense transformation under the leadership of CEO Darius Adamczyk. This transformation spanned our portfolio and business units. We were already actively working on products and solutions in advanced phases of rollouts that the world has shown a need and demand for pre-pandemic. Those included solutions in edge intelligence, remote operations, quantum computing, warehouse automation, building technologies, safety and health monitoring and of course ESG and climate tech which was based on our exceptional success over the previous decade.

Keep Reading Show less
Jeff Kimbell
Jeff Kimbell is Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer at Honeywell. In this role, he has broad responsibilities to drive organic growth by enhancing global sales and marketing capabilities. Jeff has nearly three decades of leadership experience. Prior to joining Honeywell in 2019, Jeff served as a Partner in the Transformation Practice at McKinsey & Company, where he worked with companies facing operational and financial challenges and undergoing “good to great” transformations. Before that, he was an Operating Partner at Silver Lake Partners, a global leader in technology and held a similar position at Cerberus Capital LP. Jeff started his career as a Manufacturing Team Manager and Engineering Project Manager at Procter & Gamble before becoming a strategy consultant at Bain & Company and holding executive roles at Dell EMC and Transamerica Corporation. Jeff earned a B.S. in electrical engineering at Kansas State University and an M.B.A. at Dartmouth College.
Entertainment

Peloton’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year

2022 just started, and Peloton has already halted bike production and is talking about mass layoffs. How did the pandemic darling get here?

How did Peloton go from pandemic star to sinking ship? One answer is the classic problem of supply and demand.

Image: Peloton; Protocol

It’s been a hell of a ride for Peloton. The headlines have been practically nonstop, from 2019’s cringey wife ad to 2021’s series of unfortunate “Sex and The City” events. But in 2020, Peloton could do no wrong. The at-home fitness company saw a 172% spike in sales over the course of that year, buoyed by the pandemic forcing wealthy gym-goers to stay home.

But nothing is ever easy or certain when it comes to Peloton. In the past week, Business Insider reported that Peloton is considering laying off 41% of its sales and marketing staff and closing down stores. CNBC learned that the company has hired McKinsey & Co. to help cut costs. And yesterday, CNBC reported that Peloton is temporarily halting production of its bikes. Peloton shares promptly plunged 24%.

Keep Reading Show less
Lizzy Lawrence

Lizzy Lawrence ( @LizzyLaw_) is a reporter at Protocol, covering tools and productivity in the workplace. She's a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, where she studied sociology and international studies. She served as editor in chief of The Michigan Daily, her school's independent newspaper. She's based in D.C., and can be reached at llawrence@protocol.com.

Boost 2

Can Matt Mullenweg save the internet?

He's turning Automattic into a different kind of tech giant. But can he take on the trillion-dollar walled gardens and give the internet back to the people?

Matt Mullenweg, CEO of Automattic and founder of WordPress, poses for Protocol at his home in Houston, Texas.
Photo: Arturo Olmos for Protocol

In the early days of the pandemic, Matt Mullenweg didn't move to a compound in Hawaii, bug out to a bunker in New Zealand or head to Miami and start shilling for crypto. No, in the early days of the pandemic, Mullenweg bought an RV. He drove it all over the country, bouncing between Houston and San Francisco and Jackson Hole with plenty of stops in national parks. In between, he started doing some tinkering.

The tinkering is a part-time gig: Most of Mullenweg’s time is spent as CEO of Automattic, one of the web’s largest platforms. It’s best known as the company that runs WordPress.com, the hosted version of the blogging platform that powers about 43% of the websites on the internet. Since WordPress is open-source software, no company technically owns it, but Automattic provides tools and services and oversees most of the WordPress-powered internet. It’s also the owner of the booming ecommerce platform WooCommerce, Day One, the analytics tool Parse.ly and the podcast app Pocket Casts. Oh, and Tumblr. And Simplenote. And many others. That makes Mullenweg one of the most powerful CEOs in tech, and one of the most important voices in the debate over the future of the internet.

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editorial director. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

Entertainment

Netflix looks to expand gaming with major IP deals, Fortnite-like updates

Remarks made to investors and recent job postings hint at big ambitions for Netflix’s nascent gaming efforts.

Netflix may be taking some cues from games like Fortnite and Apex: Legends for its own video game initiative.

Photo: Cameron Venti/Unsplash

Two months after launching mobile games to all of its members, Netflix is looking to double down on gaming: The company told investors Thursday that it wants to expand its portfolio of games “across both casual and core gaming genres.” Recent job offers suggest that this could include both live services games as well as an expansion to PC and console gaming, and the company's COO hinted at major licensing deals ahead.

Keep Reading Show less
Janko Roettgers

Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.

Policy

Tim Cook, Ted Cruz and the strange politics of tech antitrust

Democrats and Republicans have found the tech reform debate scrambles traditional party politics — and the Apple CEO and Texas senator have found themselves chatting.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill on Thursday that could remake the tech industry.

Photo: PartTime Portraits/Unsplash

Strange alliances formed ahead of Thursday's vote to advance a key antitrust bill to the Senate floor, with frequent foes like Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Ted Cruz supporting the measure, and prominent Democrats including California Sen. Dianne Feinstein pushing back against it.

Ultimately the bill moved out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16-6 after a surprisingly speedy debate (at least, speedy for the Senate). Even some of the lawmakers who called for further changes agreed to move the bill forward — a sign that the itch to finally regulate Big Tech after years of congressional inaction is intensifying, even as the issue scrambles traditional party politics in a way that could threaten its final passage.

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

Latest Stories
Bulletins