An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook's Battle for Domination by Sheera Frenkel and Cecilia Kang - 17 Years Ago and A Personal Perspective...

 Facebook was publishing its news under a different kind of motto: All the news from your friends that you never knew you wanted.

This book is the product of more than a thousand hours of interviews with more than four hundred people, the majority of whom are executives; former and current employees and their families, friends, and classmates; and investors in and advisers of Facebook. We also drew on interviews with more than one hundred lawmakers and regulators and their aides; consumer and privacy advocates; and academics in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, South America, and Asia. The people interviewed participated directly in the events described or, in a few instances, were briefed on the events by people directly involved. Mentions of New York Times reporters in certain scenes refer to us and/or our colleagues. An Ugly Truth draws on never-reported emails, memos, and white papers involving or approved by top executives. Many of the people interviewed recalled conversations in great detail and provided contemporaneous notes, calendars, and other documents we used to reconstruct and verify events. Because of ongoing federal and state litigation against Facebook, nondisclosure agreements in employment contracts, and fears of reprisal, the majority of interviewees spoke on the condition of being identified as a source rather than by name. In most cases, multiple people confirmed a scene, including eyewitnesses or people briefed on the episode. Therefore, readers should not assume the individual speaking in a given scene provided that information. In instances where Facebook spokespeople denied certain events or characterizations of its leaders and scenes, multiple people with direct knowledge verified our reporting. The people who spoke to us, often putting their careers at risk, were crucial to our ability to write this book. Without their voices, the story of the most consequential social experiment of our times could not have been told in full. These people provide a rare look inside a company whose stated mission is to create a connected world of open expression, but whose corporate culture demands secrecy and unqualified loyalty. While Zuckerberg and Sandberg initially told their communications staff that they wanted to make sure their perspectives were conveyed in this book, they refused repeated requests for interviews. On three occasions, Sandberg invited us to off-the-record conversations in Menlo Park and New York, with the promise that those conversations would lead to longer interviews for the record. When she learned about the critical nature of some of our reporting, she cut off direct communication. Apparently the unvarnished account of the Facebook story did not align with her vision of the company and her role as its second-in-command. Zuckerberg, we were told, had no interest in participating...

~~~

Just after 1 a.m., Pacific Standard Time, on September 5, 2006, employees crowded into one corner of the office to watch News Feed go live. Outside of Facebook employees, and a handful of investors whom Zuckerberg had briefed, no one knew about Facebook’s plans for a major overhaul. Some advisers had pleaded with Zuckerberg to do a soft launch. Zuckerberg ignored them. Instead, when the designated hour came, people logging into Facebook from across the United States were suddenly shown a prompt informing them that the site was introducing a new feature. There was only one button for them to click, and it read “Awesome.” Once the button was clicked, the old Facebook disappeared forever. Few users bothered to read the accompanying blog post from Sanghvi, which introduced the new features in a cheerful tone. Instead, they dived headfirst into Zuckerberg’s creation. At least one user was not impressed: “News Feed sucks,” read an early post. Zuckerberg and his engineers laughed it off. It would take people some time to get used to the new design, they thought. They decided to call it a night and go home to sleep. But the morning brought angry users outside Facebook’s offices on Emerson Street, and virtual protests to a Facebook group called “Students Against Facebook News Feed.”17 The group was furious that relationship updates were suddenly being posted in what felt like a public message board. Why did Facebook need to broadcast that a relationship had gone from “Just friends” to “It’s complicated”? they asked. Others were dismayed to see their summer vacation photos shared with the world. Though the feature built on information they had made public on the site, users were just now coming face-to-face with everything Facebook knew about them. The encounter was jarring. Within forty-eight hours, 7 percent of Facebook users had joined the anti–News Feed group, which was created by a junior at Northwestern University. The company’s investors panicked, with several calling Zuckerberg to ask him to turn off the new feature. The ensuing PR fallout seemed to support the suggestion: privacy advocates rallied against Facebook, decrying the new design as invasive. Protesters demonstrated outside the Palo Alto office and Zuckerberg was forced to hire Facebook’s first security guard. And yet, Zuckerberg found comfort in the numbers. Facebook’s data told him that he was right: users were spending more time on the site than ever before. In fact, the Facebook group Students Against Facebook News Feed proved that the News Feed was a hit—users were joining the group because they were seeing it at the top of their News Feed. The more users who joined, the more Facebook’s algorithms pushed it to the top of the feed. It was Facebook’s first experience with the power of News Feed to insert something into the mainstream and create a viral experience for its users. “When we watched people use it, people were really, really, really using it a lot,” Cox recalled. “There was a ton of engagement, and it was growing.”18 The experience confirmed Cox’s dismissal of the initial public response as the kind of knee-jerk reaction that had accompanied the introduction of all new technologies throughout history. “When you go back and you look at the first radio, or the first time we talked about the telephone and everybody said this is going to invade our privacy to put telephone lines in our houses because now people will call and they’ll know when I’m not home and they’ll go break into my house,” he said. “That’s probably happened a few times, but on balance, telephones are probably good.” Still, Zuckerberg knew that he had to do something to calm the backlash against the platform. At the end of a day spent fielding calls from friends and investors, he decided to say he was sorry. Just before 11 p.m. on September 5, almost twenty-four hours after News Feed launched, the CEO posted an apology on Facebook titled, “Calm Down. Breathe. We Hear You.” The 348-word note set the tone for how Zuckerberg would deal with crises going forward. “We are listening to all your suggestions about how to improve the product; it’s brand new and still evolving,” he wrote, before noting that nothing about users’ privacy settings had changed. (Whether that was in fact the case, within weeks, Facebook’s engineers would introduce tools allowing users to restrict access to some information.) Facebook wasn’t forcing users to share anything they didn’t want to share. If they weren’t happy with what they’d posted, well . . . they shouldn’t have posted it in the first place. Ultimately, the note read less like an apology than an admonition from an exasperated parent: This food is good for you. Someday you’ll thank me. The New York Times had published its paper for more than one hundred years under the motto “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” Facebook was publishing its news under a different kind of motto: All the news from your friends that you never knew you wanted. Almost immediately, the company ran into the issue of the lack of an editor, or defining principles. Newspapers drew on years of editorial judgment and institutional knowledge to determine what they would publish. The task of deciding what Facebook would and would not allow on its platform fell to a group of employees who had loosely assumed roles of content moderators, and they sketched out early ideas that essentially boiled down to “If something makes you feel bad in your gut, take it down.” These guidelines were passed along in emails or in shared bits of advice in the office cafeteria. There were lists of previous examples of items Facebook had removed, but without any explanation or context behind those decisions. It was, at best, ad hoc. This problem extended to advertising. The ads themselves were uninspiring—postage stamp boxes and banners across the site—and the small team that oversaw them generally accepted most submissions. When Director of Monetization Tim Kendall was hired, just before the launch of the News Feed, there were no set guidelines dictating acceptable ad content. And there wasn’t a vetting process in place for Kendall and the ad team that reported to him. They were essentially making it up as they went along. “All policy decisions on content were totally organic and done as a response to problems,” a former employee said. In the summer of 2006, Kendall encountered his first difficult call. Middle East political groups were attempting to buy advertisements targeting college students that intended to stir up animosities on a given side of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The ads were graphic, featuring gruesome images, including photos of dead children. The team agreed that they didn’t want to run the ads, but they were unsure how to justify their refusal to the political groups. Kendall quickly crafted a few lines stating that the company would not accept advertisements that incited hate or violence. He did not get approval from his bosses, and Zuckerberg did not weigh in. It was all very informal; there was no legal vetting of the one-sheet policy paper. Content policy was far down on the company’s list of priorities. “We didn’t understand what we had in our hands at the time. We were one hundred people at the company with five million users, and speech was not on our radar,” another employee recalled. “Mark was focused on growth, experience, and product. We had the attitude that, how could this frivolous college website have any serious issues to grapple with?” The CEO’s attention was trained elsewhere. Across the United States, high-speed internet access was growing. Better bandwidth at home and 24/7 internet access created fertile conditions for innovations in Silicon Valley—among which were new social networks focused on offering constant, ever-changing streams of information. Twitter, which had launched in July 2006, was on its way to reach a million users.19 It was used by everyone, ranging from the teenager next door to the man who would become the leader of the free world. To stay ahead, Facebook would have to get bigger. Much bigger. Zuckerberg had set his sights on connecting every internet user in the world. But to get even close to that goal, he faced a daunting problem: how to monetize. In its fourth year, Facebook needed to come up with a plan to turn eyeballs into additional dollars. It needed to up its ad game. Investors were willing to tolerate rising costs and red ink—but only to a point. Expenses piled up as Zuckerberg hired more staff, rented more office space, and invested in servers and other equipment to keep pace with growth. As Don Graham had sensed, Zuckerberg was a businessman with little enthusiasm for business. The year after Facebook was created, he reflected on his early experiences as a CEO in a documentary about Millennials by Ray Hafner and Derek Franzese. He mused aloud about the idea of finding someone else to handle all the parts of running a company that he found tiresome. “The role of CEO changes with the size of the company,” the then-twenty-one-year-old Zuckerberg says in the film. He is sitting on a couch in the Palo Alto office, barefoot and wearing a T-shirt and gym shorts. “In a really small start-up, the CEO is very often like the founder or idea guy. If you are a big company, the CEO is really just managing and maybe doing some strategy but not necessarily being the guy with the big ideas. “So, like, it’s a transition moving toward that and also, do I want to continue doing that? Or do I want to hire someone to do that and just focus more on like cool ideas? That’s more fun,” he says, chuckling.20

~~~

I've been plugging along on this book for months now and, frankly, found little to share about its relevance to the general public--you know, like you and me... For instance, it didn't surprise me when the first thing that stood out was that the head of Facebook really had no interest in getting into the actual administration of the magnificent and ever-spreading social program that arrived into the hands of all of us... You know, like, me! Most of us believed the PR about getting to know people from all over the world... About finding those of like-minded interests with whom we could, often, become ongoing online friends... 

The book talks about hiring a second in command to handle the administrative issues... And that was about all that we learn... For me, I did wonder...wouldn't you? After all, when a business starts up, it is the owner, the creator that normally establishes the parameters upon which the business will evolve. Normally, goals and objectives are created and then measured... None of that... Other than, as the subtitle stated. Facebook wanted to dominate in this new field of social media and wanted it to happen quickly...

One of the key elements, however, is that we find that Talking and Sharing really wasn't the reason for the platform. There was a very definite goal to make money through ads, of course, which is logical... But then there was reference to actually using personal data for multiple purposes. Now my life is fairly stagnant, so I saw no effect of much that I read actually affecting me...

Mark Zuckerberg’s three greatest fears, according to a former senior Facebook executive, were that the site would be hacked, that his employees would be physically hurt, and that regulators would one day break up his social network. At 2:30 p.m. on December 9, 2020, that last fear became an imminent threat. The Federal Trade Commission and nearly every state in the nation sued Facebook for harming its users and competitors, and sought to dismantle the company. Breaking news alerts flashed across the screens of tens of millions of smartphones. CNN and CNBC cut from regular programming to the announcement. The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times posted banner headlines across the tops of their home pages. Minutes later, New York State Attorney General Letitia James, whose office coordinated the bipartisan coalition of forty-eight attorneys general, held a press conference in which she laid out the case, the strongest government offensive against a company since the breakup of AT&T in 1984.1 What she claimed amounted to a sweeping indictment of Facebook’s entire history—and specifically of its leaders, Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg.2 “It tells a story from the beginning, the creation of Facebook at Harvard University,” James said. For years, Facebook had exercised a merciless “buy-or-bury” strategy to kill off competitors. The result was the creation of a powerful monopoly that wreaked broad damage. It abused the privacy of its users and spurred an epidemic of toxic and harmful content reaching three billion people. “By using its vast troves of data and money, Facebook has squashed or hindered what the company perceived as potential threats,” James said. “They’ve reduced choices for consumers, they stifled innovation and they degraded privacy protections for millions of Americans.” Cited more than one hundred times by name in the complaints, Mark Zuckerberg was portrayed as a rule-breaking founder who achieved success through bullying and deception. “If you stepped into Facebook’s turf or resisted pressure to sell, Zuckerberg would go into ‘destroy mode’ subjecting your business to the ‘wrath of Mark,’” the attorneys general wrote, quoting from emails by competitors and investors. The chief executive was so afraid of losing out to rivals that he “sought to extinguish or impede, rather than outperform or out-innovate, any competitive threat.” He spied on competitors, and he broke commitments to the founders of Instagram and WhatsApp soon after the start-ups were acquired, the states’ complaint further alleged. At Zuckerberg’s side throughout was Sheryl Sandberg, the former Google executive who converted his technology into a profit powerhouse using an innovative and pernicious advertising business that was “surveilling” users for personal data. Facebook’s ad business was predicated on a dangerous feedback loop: the more time users spent on the site, the more data Facebook mined. The lure was free access to the service, but consumers bore steep costs in other ways. “Users do not pay a cash price to use Facebook. Instead, users exchange their time, attention, and personal data for access to Facebook’s services,” the states’ complaint asserted. It was a growth-at-any-cost business strategy, and Sandberg was the industry’s best at scaling the model. Intensely organized, analytical, hardworking, and with superior interpersonal skills, she was the perfect foil for Zuckerberg. She oversaw all the departments that didn’t interest him—policy and communication, legal, human resources, and revenue creation. Drawing on years of public speaking training, and on political consultants to curate her public persona, she was the palatable face of Facebook to investors and the public, distracting attention from the core problem. “It’s about the business model,” one government official said in an interview. Sandberg’s behavioral advertising prototype treated human data as financial instruments bartered in markets like corn or pork belly futures. Her handiwork was “a contagion,” the official added, echoing the words of academic and activist Shoshana Zuboff, who a year earlier had described Sandberg as playing “the role of Typhoid Mary, bringing surveillance capitalism from Google to Facebook, when she signed on as Mark Zuckerberg’s number two.”3 With scant competition to force the leaders to consider the wellbeing of their customers, there was “a proliferation of misinformation and violent or otherwise objectionable content on Facebook’s properties,” the attorneys general alleged in their complaint. Even when faced with major impropriety such as Russia’s disinformation campaign and the data privacy scandal involving Cambridge Analytica, users didn’t leave the site because there were few alternatives, the regulators maintained. As James succinctly described, “Instead of competing on the merits, Facebook used its power to suppress competition so it could take advantage of users and make billions by converting personal data into a cash cow.” When the FTC and states came down with their landmark lawsuits against Facebook, we were nearing completion of our own investigation of the company, one based on fifteen years of reporting, which has afforded us a singular look at Facebook from the inside. Several versions of the Facebook story have been told in books and film. But despite being household names, Zuckerberg and Sandberg remain enigmas to the public, and for good reason. They are fiercely protective of the images they’ve cultivated—he, the technology visionary and philanthropist; she, business icon and feminist—and have surrounded the inner workings of “MPK,” the shorthand employees use to describe the headquarters’ campus in Menlo Park, with its moat of loyalists and culture of secrecy. Many people regard Facebook as a company that lost its way: the classic Frankenstein story of a monster that broke free of its creator. We take a different point of view. From the moment Zuckerberg and Sandberg met at a Christmas party in December 2007, we believe, they sensed the potential to transform the company into the global power it is today.4 Through their partnership, they methodically built a business model that is unstoppable in its growth—with $85.9 billion in revenue in 2020 and a market value of $800 billion—and entirely deliberate in its design.5 We have chosen to focus on a five-year period, from one U.S. election to another, during which both the company’s failure to protect its users and its vulnerabilities as a powerful global platform were exposed. All the issues that laid the groundwork for what Facebook is today came to a head within this time frame. It would be easy to dismiss the story of Facebook as that of an algorithm gone wrong. The truth is far more complex...

~~~ 

At about the same time that Facebook was established, I had also split off from the former Independent Professional Book Review Site, and gone on my own--the main difference was that I was not going to charge anything for actually doing my reviews. We were a new site at a time when many changes in publishing were being made, while at the same time, many newspapers were no longer doing book reviews... And, more importantly, the new process for independently publishing books was also just starting. We charged by the length of the book, meaning paid for the time it actually took us to read each book.

But then, the IRS started seeing what was happening and got involved. We had to bill/invoice, wait for the money to be sent, keep financial records and then file income taxes... That was not something that I wanted to continue as I moved forward. I had also made a move here to Google's Blogger and was totally enjoying the lack of the overhead issue. Early on I decided I didn't want to make money through ads either...My love of books and desire to help authors, especially new writers who knew very little about the actual activities needed to publish a book--I had learned much as I worked part-time with a small Christian Publishing company--and I thought I could share some of that unpaid working experience to others...

Sooo, the timing was perfect, I was one of the first to sign up for Facebook. What I did first, was do a search for people by topic: authors, publishing, writers, editors... and asked to connect... It didn't take long until I was at 5000 which was the limits of connections at that time. All of the connections related to publishing. I have a few family connections but other than that, we all were building a community on this new site. Many were from Gather.com where we had also built a community... When that closed, many of us moved to FB...

Me, I'm a planner so I knew what I wanted to do then. I created, perhaps, the very first group strictly related to books and publishing. I called it Reviewers Roundup. Initially I developed files for exchange of information, but ultimately, it became a live streaming of books of all kinds that had been reviewed, newly published... or any other news from the publishing world. Soon we had a daily updated streaming of books, announcements, reviews, tour events, plus those who did editing, etc., that would share info about how to reach them. There was never a day, once established, that that group did not have new posts streaming!

At the same time, I created my own Page which would include only the reviews that I did on my blog... That ultimately became a concurrent PR page for the group, so that I would send over examples of the posts which would allow people to see the connection and info about the group membership which was in the thousands... And, at the same time, many others started creating their own pages/groups, often adding me as a member of their groups just to get things started. I didn't mind...it was all about the books, sharing and supporting each other...

And then META came into existence. My page was changed to a site to sell/make money. I didn't want to do that, had nothing to sell... There was no way to change it back, nor was there a way to delete the page...

Then we started getting contacts via messenger to connect (from Instagram) but we had no idea who they were, and often found they just wanted to get into FB via messenger. Writers started seeing that people were stealing writers names and making their own accounts. I knew of one man whose account was stolen over 3 times and each time he had to create a new account using a different name or it would be a duplicate site and we never really knew who was contacting us...

At that time, it was clear that money was involved more and more in what was occurring. The book does cover much about what was occurring in the political areas... We on Facebook, especially in the writing community, knew nothing about what was going on... Except we learned about it from the news. For instance, we knew the results of the Mueller Report showed that Russia had been assisting in the campaign related to then candidate Trump. We also learned that the specific group from Russia was identified...We knew about attempts to bring about election fraud...and so much more...

I remember I took over a group that had been abandoned and created "Words Matter" which was hopefully to be a chance where people could talk about things openly without any type of discrimination. On my blog, I connected with an author on FB and asked if he would allow me to share his opinions on the political area, as a guest blogger... I had also begun to read and review relevant books being written before, during and after that first Trump administration... Finally, since I rarely used my page anymore since the orientation was toward money, I took over another abandoned group and used it for my personal sharing, "These are a Few of My Favorite Things..." On that site I started sharing my Open Memoir in one location, similar to other writers who had a group for their individual or multiple books... It was always about books!

No matter who you are or what you do, You, Me, I, are the center of that activity...With Facebook, I saw an opportunity to bring book lovers together and I did...

Others had interest in music and groups were formed...

Others wanted to talk news, sports, or whatever...that's what we loved to talk about and we flooded to Facebook because the platform allowed us to do exactly what we wanted to do...Meet other people with similar interests...

It was very hard to take when things started going wrong. We dealt with the fake or duplicate accounts and reported them, but until META came into existence, the concept that it was all about money never really was thought about... Ads were there to either consider or ignore. We used the news feed daily or not at all, sticking to groups related to our interests...

For me? I still have NO Idea what happened...

The first time Mark Zuckerberg saw a website called “the Facebook,” it had been conceived, coded, and named by someone else. It was a goodwill project meant to help friends connect with one another. It was free. And Zuckerberg’s first instinct was to break it.

The thing is that I've been on just about every social site at one time or another and I have never found a site that is packaged in such a way that Facebook provides. To me, there is no comparison in scope and flexibility. So why was there such a high priority that money became the driving point, grabbing other sites already developed--Instagram, What'sApp? Google seems to be the only comparable company in size, but the difference between platforms is greater in my opinion, which in my mind, there really isn't, or shouldn't be, a competition so great that, instead of dealing with the status of the platform as it is, why go out and acquire other sites and link them, without regard to the implications...

In fact, apparently that is what started for me... 

Because one day in July of last year I tried to routinely sign on and was blocked... (following are screenshots of online "garbage" which is as far as I can get into Facebook. No notice of the problem was announced except via this blockage!

That's It! That was all that was ever shared with Me!

At that time, this screen also showed three paragraphs...Now they are listed under help!

The first thing was to verify who I was... But they had a very specific set of instructions that I couldn't figure out how to do... I was to take a selfie, hold a large paper with a number they gave me and hold in front of me, while moving my head back and forth side to side... Yea, I thought it was the most ridiculous concept ever, especially since I was being asked to identify myself, somebody who had been on the site since the beginning!

Now if you stop and count, that means that you had to hold a cell phone away from your body with one hand, hold a paper in your other hand and move your head side to side while controlling your camera to make a video (without being able to even see what the camera was actually looking at)... Hey! I maybe have taken one or two selfies in my entire life and I was already upset--I admit it--. I snapped a picture and sent it, explaining I couldn't figure out how to follow the instructions... They wouldn't even consider options...And I'm thinking, why do I have to verify myself if somebody else was using my account??? I had my niece do the video and submitted. I never heard anything thereafter. I do have the video and tried to load here but didn't have the right connection so will try to add later...or if you're really interested, I'll send you a copy if I can figure that out also! LOL

In the meantime, Meta started sending me emails asking if my problem was solved and I would write back NO...

I could visualize some program already set up so that I would think they were working on getting this solved--supposedly somebody had done something to my account... Yeah, right... So I asked somebody who could check... My entire account, plus all three groups, including the two used by other people apparently had just disappeared--no explanation! Not to group members, not to my thousands of connections made over a decade and more...and no explanation to me the person who was supposed to verify my existence and get back on Facebook...NOT... 

Yes, I got angry, sarcastic, and wanted to know why I had been removed! I raised questions about freedom of speech, freedom of information in one form or another... The key issue is that for any of these sites that have money as the leading reason for their existence, you need to know that they really don't care whether you are there or not. You will be just one of billions who will share your information, be hounded for ads, and, in the end, you can be completely wiped off the site so that nobody will ever know you were one of the first members who got a writing community started on a new site that started and begun a success almost two decades ago... And you will have lost all of Your Words Shared to somebody with whom you wanted to talk and remember...

My advice...Don't bother reading this book. Unless you are a techie who wants to know more about what happens when a boss has no concern about the clients/customers they serve, even if they give you  free access. Just be sure you realize that all the time you spent there during your life can be zapped away by a fake claim that suspicious activities are taking place... and they can do anything they want...

So, Consider this... While Donald Trump was kicked off of Facebook during his first term... many of the billionaires are now supporting the complete destruction of the federal government, including all regulations that would prevent more money being made by those who has suckered us in, many giving much more personal information than they every thought could be dangerous, and yet, we now see that it is... All of our personal information was turned over to a man who was never elected into office... Along with those techies who enjoy messing around with data and how it can be used to make even more money, the last election opened up a can of wormy, greedy money grabbers who care nothing about anybody, knowing that your information is much more valuable than anything you thought you were contributing to even small groups of your neighbors... Remember it was proven that the January 6th Insurrection was planned within Facebook and on other sites that also have allowed the elimination of personal freedom at the cost of our nation's security...

Only one thing I regret at this point...There were writers on Facebook with whom I was working on their books... Many I don't have any other way to reach those individuals... Sure, I continue to read and share but it's not the same, is it? Our entire world is now based on a false set of parameters that are solidified upon the goals of greed, power, and prejudice... For those Christians who undoubtedly voted in support of Trump, I feel sorry for you... Many have written about making the mistake of believing in Trump... There is no solid ground for those who chose a man--a criminal--over Christ our Lord (for Christians)... How will you explain that to your children when they start reading of the hate and destruction of our democracy... through a cult led by one man...

\\

I hope all of you have begun to realize just how things are being turned upside down... Lady Liberty may go screaming back to France when she sees we are no longer the country she came to stand and welcome to America...

Many are saying this; I am too...

If you or somebody in your family depend upon Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to survive, please keep your eyes and ears open

Musk has already declared that "entitlement" programs have to go...

Well, Social Security is OUR money into Our Own Accounts

And we must fight to ensure we do not lose OUR OWN MONEY!

especially to give higher tax breaks to the rich!

Keep Alert!

GABBY