Protocol | 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."

Protocol | Workplace

Instacart workers are on strike. How far can it get them?

Instacart activists want a nationwide strike to start today, but many workers are too afraid of the company and feel they can't afford a day off of work.

Gig workers protest in front of an Amazon facility in 2020.

Photo: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Starting today, an Instacart organizing group is asking the app's gig workers to go on a nationwide strike to demand better payment structures, benefits and other changes to the way the company treats its workers — but if past strikes are any indication, most Instacart users probably won't even notice.

The majority of Instacart workers on forums like Reddit and Facebook appear either unaware of the planned strike or don't plan to participate because they are skeptical of its power, afraid of retaliation from the company or are too reliant on what they do make from the app to be able to afford to take even one day off of the platform. "Not unless someone is going to pay my bills," "It will never work, you will never be able to get every shopper to organize" and "Last time there was a 'strike' Instacart took away our quality bonus pay," are just a few of the comments Instacart shoppers have left in response to news of the strike.

Keep Reading Show less
Anna Kramer

Anna Kramer is a reporter at Protocol (Twitter: @ anna_c_kramer, email: akramer@protocol.com), where she writes about labor and workplace issues. Prior to joining the team, she covered tech and small business for the San Francisco Chronicle and privacy for Bloomberg Law. She is a recent graduate of Brown University, where she studied International Relations and Arabic and wrote her senior thesis about surveillance tools and technological development in the Middle East.

The way we work has fundamentally changed. COVID-19 upended business dealings and office work processes, putting into hyperdrive a move towards digital collaboration platforms that allow teams to streamline processes and communicate from anywhere. According to the International Data Corporation, the revenue for worldwide collaboration applications increased 32.9 percent from 2019 to 2020, reaching $22.6 billion; it's expected to become a $50.7 billion industry by 2025.

"While consumers and early adopter businesses had widely embraced collaborative applications prior to the pandemic, the market saw five years' worth of new users in the first six months of 2020," said Wayne Kurtzman, research director of social and collaboration at IDC. "This has cemented collaboration, at least to some extent, for every business, large and small."

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Silver

Kate Silver is an award-winning reporter and editor with 15-plus years of journalism experience. Based in Chicago, she specializes in feature and business reporting. Kate's reporting has appeared in the Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Atlantic's CityLab, Atlas Obscura, The Telegraph and many other outlets.

Protocol | China

WeChat promises to stop accessing users’ photo albums amid public outcry

A tech blogger claimed that popular Chinese apps snoop around users' photo libraries, provoking heightened public concerns over privacy.

A survey launched by Sina Tech shows 94% of the some 30,000 responding users said they are not comfortable with apps reading their photo libraries just to allow them to share images faster in chats.

Photo: S3studio via Getty Images

A Chinese tech blogger dropped a bombshell last Friday, claiming on Chinese media that he found that several popular Chinese apps, including the Tencent-owned chat apps WeChat and QQ, as well as the Alibaba-owned ecommerce app Taobao, frequently access iPhone users' photo albums in the background even when those apps are not in use.

The original Weibo post from the tech blogger, using the handle of @Hackl0us, provoked intense debates about user privacy on the Chinese internet and consequently prompted WeChat to announce that it would stop fetching users' photo album data in the background.

Keep Reading Show less
Shen Lu

Shen Lu is a reporter with Protocol | China. Her writing has appeared in Foreign Policy, The New York Times and POLITICO, among other publications. She can be reached at shenlu@protocol.com.

Protocol | Enterprise

As businesses struggle with data, enterprise tech is cleaning up

Enterprise tech's vision of "big data" largely fell flat inside silos. But now, an army of providers think they've figured out the problems. And customers and investors are taking note.

Corporate data tends to settle in silos that makes it harder to understand the bigger picture. Enterprise tech vendors smell a lucrative opportunity.

Photo: Jim Witkowski/Unsplash

Data isn't the new oil; it's the new gold. And in any gold rush, the ones who make the most money in the long run are the tool makers and suppliers.

Enterprise tech vendors have long peddled a vision of corporate America centered around so-called "big data." But there was a big problem: Many of those projects failed to produce a return. An army of new providers think they've finally figured out the problem, and investors and customers are taking note.

Keep Reading Show less
Joe Williams

Joe Williams is a senior reporter at Protocol covering enterprise software, including industry giants like Salesforce, Microsoft, IBM and Oracle. He previously covered emerging technology for Business Insider. Joe can be reached at JWilliams@Protocol.com. To share information confidentially, he can also be contacted on a non-work device via Signal (+1-309-265-6120) or JPW53189@protonmail.com.

Protocol | Policy

What Frances Haugen’s SEC complaint means for the rest of tech

Haugen argues Facebook misled investors by failing to disclose its platforms' harms. If the SEC bites, the rest of tech could be next.

The question is whether the SEC will find the contents of Haugen's complaint relevant to investors' interests.

Photo: Matt McClain-Pool/Getty Images

Whistleblowers like former Facebook staffer Frances Haugen have pretty limited options when it comes to actually seeking redress for the harms they've observed and documented. There's no federal privacy law in the U.S. to speak of, Section 230 protects platforms for online speech and companies like Facebook are under no obligation to share any information with lawmakers, or anyone else, about what's happening on their sites.

But there is one agency that not only governs all publicly-traded companies, including in tech, but also offers whistleblowers like Haugen the opportunity for a payout: the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Latest Stories