In the recent antitrust trial of Meta conducted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the long-standing tension between Silicon Valley and the media once again surfaced.
During the trial, Mark Hansen, Meta's chief lawyer, mentioned in a fierce cross-examination of FTC’s key economic expert Scott Hemphill that Hemphill had proposed an anti-monopoly investigation into Meta alongside Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes and former Biden official Tim Wu in 2019.
Hansen displayed a slide of this investigation proposal in court, which mentioned the "public recognition" of two journalists, Kara Swisher and Om Malik, who had reported on Meta’s aggressive acquisition strategy. Hansen attempted to undermine Hemphill’s credibility by referring to Malik as a “failed blogger,” implying a personal grudge against Meta. He also cited an article by Swisher in Vanity Fair, calling Mark Zuckerberg a “soulless little creature.”
The 2019 proposal presented in court by Hansen also quoted a New York Post report supporting a monopoly investigation into Facebook. Hansen asked Hemphill if he agreed that the New York Post was a scandal sheet, to which Hemphill responded that he did not have a clear opinion. The cover of the New York Post displayed by Hansen reflected the media's criticism of Meta.
This trial not only revealed the conflicts between Meta and the media but also demonstrated the public opinion pressure faced by tech giants when dealing with regulations. As the trial progresses, this debate surrounding media credibility and tech company behavior is expected to continue to attract widespread attention.
Key Points:
📉1. In the Meta antitrust trial, lawyers questioned the credibility of media journalists, intensifying tensions with the media.
📰2. The proposal presented in court mentioned negative comments by two journalists about Meta as evidence for the anti-monopoly investigation.
⚖️3. This trial highlighted the complex dynamics faced by tech companies in response to public opinion and regulation.