The conflict between Facebook and the whistleblower currently grabbing headlines appears to largely boil down to a situation in which the whistleblower claims that Facebook isn’t censoring enough and the company remains adamant that it is censoring as aggressively as it can. Whoever wins in this argument, the result for anyone who understands how powerful social media can be in shaping public opinion will undoubtedly be frightening.
Whistleblower wants more censorship
Facebook global policy head Nick Clegg, a former Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, sent a memo to employees which pointed to the amount of censorship already pushed by the company.
Special attention was given to how effective Facebook had been in influencing the outcome of the 2020 election through various “emergency measures.”
The fact that the company is pointing to the extent to which it worked to assist the Biden campaign reveals the nature of the whistleblower accusations.
The social media monopolist is responding to the current attacks by emphasizing its loyalty to the current government and point to its credentials as an aid in the right kinds of censorship.
Facebook deserves to sweat through public scrutiny but the sorts of attacks being promoted in the mainstream media only accuse the company of not doing enough to censor right wing opinions.
Viewed in this context the whole thing appears to be more political theater than the serious conflict between the corporation and the public which it is being sold as.
An active Democrat
“Whistleblower” Frances Haugen is not really blowing any whistles about seriously damaging developments at Facebook.
This is not surprising given that Haugen herself is very happy with the current state of affairs, as her record of donations to leftist candidates and causes shows.
Do legitimate whistleblowers often turn out to be firm supporters of the ruling party who call desperately for the government to censor more of its political opponents?
The controversy may or may not be completely staged but, regardless, it seems to have all of the authenticity of the 1927 Liberian election.
People who are not entirely aware of the situation might see headlines criticizing Facebook and assume that Haugen is directing serious accusations against her former employer.
In fact, Haugen and Facebook seem to be essentially on the same page aside from the fact that the “whistleblower” isn’t suppressing opinions it doesn’t like forcefully enough.
