Facebook’s Cowardly Attempt to Smear the Whistleblower
Facebook has selected to reply to whistleblower Frances Haugen in the maximum cowardly method conceivable: by means of hiding Mark Zuckerberg, the guy in the long run answerable for Facebook’s choices, and starting the strategy of attempting to smear and discredit Haugen. This is a few Big Tobacco bullshit — exactly what sleazeball PR guru John Scanlon used to be employed to do when Jeffrey Wigand blew the whistle on tobacco corporate Brown and Williamson. Scanlon’s activity used to be to alternate “the tale of B&W to a story about Wigand’s persona.” Of path, that technique “backfired utterly,” Vanity Fair reported in 2004. It most definitely gained’t paintings right here, both. One senator, Edward Markey of Massachusetts, has already known as Haugen “a 21st-century American hero,” including that “our country owes you an enormous debt of gratitude.” Like Wigand, Haugen has receipts: inner paperwork and information from Facebook’s personal researchers, all of which make for severe and supported claims about the platform’s harms and alternatives the corporate made to maximize benefit and engagement in ways in which would build up the ones harms. It is conceivable to contend along with her allegations on the deserves, however Facebook is simply too immoral for that — and Zuckerberg has made up our minds he’s above it, as an alternative happening holiday. Let’s learn thru nowadays’s Facebook observation on the Haugen listening to in combination, we could? Facebook PR: “Today a Senate Commerce subcommittee held a listening to with a former product supervisor at Facebook who labored for the corporate for lower than two years, had no direct studies, by no means attended a decision-point assembly with C-level executives — and testified greater than six occasions to now not operating on the subject material in query.” Translation: Today, a peon testified in Congress; she is simply too unimportant to identify. Nothing she says is worth it as a result of she isn’t fancy sufficient. And despite the fact that she had get entry to to a couple of inner analysis paperwork supporting her claims, you’ll’t consider her testimony on them — regardless of her subject material experience and years of enjoy in the box — as a result of she didn’t write them herself. Facebook PR: “We don’t consider her characterization of the many problems she testified about.” Translation: We suppose she’s mendacity however gained’t say how, or about what, particularly. Facebook PR: “Despite all this, we agree on something; it’s time to start to create usual laws for the web. It’s been 25 years since the laws for the web had been up to date, and as an alternative of anticipating the trade to make societal choices that belong to legislators, it’s time for Congress to act.” Translation: It is time to alternate the topic to one thing we adore higher, despite the fact that Haugen herself mentioned Facebook is presenting false alternatives when it comes to privateness and loose speech. Now, let’s all understand what’s lacking. Though Facebook disputes Haugen’s characterizations of the analysis in query, it doesn’t supply its personal interpretation. Nor does it have interaction any of the claims Haugen makes — which can be, by the way, supported by means of inner Facebook analysis Haugen supplied. If Facebook had proof, it might display it. After seeing this observation, the man who used to be as soon as Haugen’s boss’s boss, Samidh Chakrabarti, sponsored Haugen. Her issues are actual, he mentioned. And as Facebook’s Civic Integrity Lead, he did have direct studies and sat in on C-suite conversations. Well I used to be there for over 6 years, had…
Like to keep reading?
This article first appeared on theverge.com. If you'd like to keep reading, follow the white rabbit.