Facebook and Google's commitment to protecting human rights and the public interest is hamstrung by their ad-based profit models and absolute focus on growth
Facebook and Google have made broad-based commitments to protect human rights and the public interest, but only to the extent … Tweets: @justinhendrix , @rankingrights , @ellerybiddle , @rankingrights , @rankingrights , and @rankingrights Tweets: Justin Hendrix / @justinhendrix : Tech companies have made broad-based commitments to protect human rights & the public interest, but only to the extent that it won't interfere with their ad-based profit models. Lawmakers are right to follow the money, says @rankingrights's @ellerybiddle: https://techpolicy.press/... @rankingrights : Facebook and Google say they protect #humanrights. But our research shows this happens only when it doesn't interfere with their business model. RDR editorial director @ellerybiddle's latest in @TechPolicyPress: https://techpolicy.press/... Ellery Biddle / @ellerybiddle : My latest piece — first time publishing with @techpolicypress! Thanks to @justinhendrix for making it happen and to my @rankingrights crew for allllll that data <3 https://twitter.com/... @rankingrights : Read @ellerybiddle in @TechPolicyPress: “Companies are choosing profit over the public interest and deliberately concealing how they build their algorithms. This is not just about trade secrets or bad actors. It is about their fundamental goal: growth.” https://techpolicy.press/... @rankingrights : @ellerybiddle @techpolicypress @FrankPallone @RepAnnaEshoo @Google @nyuniversity @themarkup @_KarenHao @techreview “It is gratifying to see lawmakers finally striking at the root of these problems, rather than focusing only on content. When it comes to legislation, our money is on the business model.” https://techpolicy.press/... @rankingrights : @ellerybiddle @techpolicypress We evaluate tech companies' commitments to #humanrights. In 2020, when we looked into their #algorithms and ad targeting systems—the same systems that fuel misinformation—the #BigTech platforms had little to show: https://rankingdigitalrights.org/ ...
Context & Ripple Effects
Ellery Biddle's argument in Tech Policy Press is that Facebook and Google's public-interest pledges have a built-in escape clause: they hold only where they don't interfere with ad revenue or growth. That reading is grounded in Ranking Digital Rights' finding that in 2020 the big platforms had little to show on their algorithms and ad-targeting systems, alongside reports that both companies deliberately conceal how those systems are built.
The piece lands mid-arc in a broader accountability push: Matt Stoller has argued Google and Facebook may keep up predatory behavior for years while antitrust cases play out unless prosecutors go after executives directly, and a New Statesman investigation found six EU academic institutes took tens of millions from Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft over five years — softening the independent research base that would otherwise test these platforms' claims.
First-order effects
- Lawmakers scrutinizing Facebook and Google now have a concrete target: the ad-based profit model itself, rather than individual moderation failures — Biddle explicitly frames 'follow the money' as the right investigative lens.
- Ranking Digital Rights' 2020 scorecard leaves the companies exposed: their human-rights commitments can't be verified because they disclose almost nothing about algorithms and ad-targeting.
Second-order effects
- With civil antitrust litigation expected to run for years, the deterrence burden shifts to criminal referrals against executives as the faster lever — Stoller's proposed escalation that regulators would otherwise lack.
- Funding flows like those uncovered at EU institutes give Facebook and Google a quieter second defense: shaping the academic field that would independently audit their algorithmic and ad-targeting practices.
Third-order effects
- If the pattern holds, effective regulation moves from policing content outcomes to constraining the ad-funded growth model itself — the same structural question running through the Clegg–Klobuchar–Hawley–Hughes reform debate over limiting platform harm.
- Human-rights due-diligence standards for US tech firms would extend beyond domestic platforms to exported tools, connecting to earlier reporting on American-built surveillance products used abroad to violate rights.
The trend: Platform accountability is shifting from content-moderation fixes to scrutiny of the ad-funded business models that make credible human-rights commitments structurally impossible.