Interesting, I suppose we'll see if LenddoEFL becomes a facebook property, or if their IP ends up in facebook's custody. I admit it's compelling, and if it is a sort of capital jailbreak / social score coup de grace masked as intra-elite squabbling it should be received as a message on the order of the Epstein murder or great recession bailouts. Lenddo and the Omidyar Network put a real twist on things, bringing, presumably, tons of capital and power to the fight, and I'm beginning to think the little guys (unheard-of chat client, social media, or as a friend said "losers sue winner for winning") are there just to get standing. Please update this thread with any news. Best, Will On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 9:07 PM Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 02:18:47PM -0500, Will Jackson wrote:
Presumably this is what you're referencing:
https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-lawsuit-zuckerberg-cede-control-sta...
"Four tech firms — two of which are now defunct — are suing Facebook on antitrust grounds and demanding that Mark Zuckerberg give up control of
company."
"The four companies are Circl, an online marketplace and social network; Beehive Biometric, an identity-verification firm; Reveal Chat, a chat app; and Lenddo, a financial-services provider."
I'm having trouble connecting the dots to Zuck himself, as these (in some cases erstwhile) CEOs don't actually seem to know him. I admit your
is plausible, but not sure if we can get from A to B without more info on each of these VC pits, their backers & C-suite. This would be helpful to that end, if anyone has access: https://www.law360.com/articles/1235382
Interestingly, Beehive Biometric was partly run by Mary Haskett who is now CEO of a different biometric startup titled Blink Identity. From their website: "With decades of experience developing identity systems for enterprises in high-risk environments, Blink Identity’s biometric matching system utilizes military-grade technology to reliably identify people at full walking speed in any lighting condition." Their solution (facial recognition) reconfigures military tech for stadiums, stateside. Would be good business if they can convince your average sports fan to link their season ticket purchase to a biometric profile. From what I can find, Beehive was doing something similar.
So what the fuck does that have to do with facebook?
Another weird bit is that Lenddo is an Omidyar property, one which some of you may remember as the US's private-sector counterpart to China's "Social Credit Score," where a credit score for an individual is determined by many factors, including social media presence. I use "private-sector" here loosely, it's intimately linked with USAID < https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/15396/External_Overview_...
(and thus CIA) and is a way of scooping up another billion people into
global financial markets. In NGO language: Lenddo and EFL Team Up to Lead Financial Inclusion Revolution <https://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/10/prweb14806664.htm>. That's a
release announcing their merger with another USAID-backed "global company that provides psychometric assessments for largely unbanked people,"
the premise the press titled
EFL. EFL was born at Harvard before incorporating in the Phillipines (both founders American) and is headquartered in Singapore - any red flags yet? But this is all a big digression. <https://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/10/prweb14806664.htm>
Ahh, biometric laced social credit scores for the West of course!
You see, that's exactly another "hard to pull off without severe public backlash" trick - FaceBook instituting biometric IDs and social credit scores.
A nice clean "loss" for FaceBook, in court, would "clean that slate, firetruckers."
FaceBook is absolutely -loaded- with QE4 fueled share price capex, and Zuckerberg owns so much he cannot cash out without seriously disrupting FaceBook's share price.
Deals (biometrics, social credit scores) which go against the public interest, are at the least annoying to do so publicly.
But having this court case, FaceBook can appear to be given a slap on the wrist (say, paying out $20 billion to these schmucks who are running this sham court case) so that Zuckerberg can cash out (say $300 billion out of his $380 billion in shareholding), and FaceBook is "forced" to "work with" these Chinese style social credit score companies as another "slap on the wrist".
Every body Pump. Every body Dump. Everybody furking a-round the courts.
Again, is Facebook even remotely involved with these markets? Has Lenddo been muscled out of some contract that we just don't know about? From what I remember internet.org crashed and burned, and private banking wasn't even the point! I suppose private banking isn't really the point of LenddoEFL either, as once they are a financial institution with up to 1b customers they'll be in the god-tier of financial institutions, repackaging their debts and assets into all sorts of new tradable instruments, and of course, they'll be much too big to fail. Besides, think of the poor peasants you'll be hurting by not bailing out their loansharks!
I don't care about the other two frankly, probably just trying to recoup some losses.
I probably got some of the details here wrong but you get the gist: two of these companies seem to be complaining that facebook has monopolized social and biometric data collection. Not only does this seem manifestly untrue it seems difficult to provide even a lick of evidence for the latter.
That's your first hint that this is a sham court case.
Something's fishy but I'm not totally buying the Zuck fortune exfiltration story. I guess I understand why LenddoEFL wants in to facebook's walled garden, but their status as basically a front for USAID / CIA "development" ops in areas beyond (or just within) facebook's grasp makes me wonder why they want access to facebook's market-share. Are there that many unbanked facebook users?
more evidence please
"CIA development ops" - well, well, well - so try this for size: the CIA wants FaceBook to expand their ID to include biometrics, and then social credit scores. Imagine that being a public contract.
How can that be achieved "under fig leaf" of some sort - well, the authority of the courts is pretty 'clandestine' for the average sheeple, and while we're at it, Zuckerberg asks for a little help to exfiltrate his mullah - so this "Zuckerberg must sell all his shares" is "senselessly" tacked onto the court case.
Brilliant plan if you ask me ... as long as too many folks don't find out <snort>