Suckerburg Versus The ‘Little People’
(06 Oct 2021)
I posted a narrative a short time ago, within the past month or thereabouts, to my social media.
I included actual images (NOT Photoshop) of both Crooked Drumpf and Laura Ingraham giving their ‘Heil Hitler’ NAZI salute to their audiences.
I was browsing my Facebook wall one Sunday morning (11am hour, 26 Sep 21). I noticed that I kept getting an invalid alert.
I eventually got through and accessed my Facebook wall. That subject post and all its images are removed.
Who else controls that system!
I suspect that this Zuck action is a precursor to him sending me to his Facebook Jail for violating his NAZI sensibilities.
Truth is the absolute defence against charges of slander and liable. I posted Truth – that both Crooked Drumpf and Ingraham gave ‘Heil Hitler’ NAZI salutes at public events.
There was a report on the TV news Monday afternoon that the entire Facebook system went down – Suckerburg threw a childish hissy fit and crashed everything today.
Only recently are his applications being restored by evening time.
Broadcast network news reported that Suckerburg and Facebook are valued at $1 trillion, then lost $6 billion in stock value by the end of Monday’s trading day.
Amazing to try to comprehend that Zuck is so wealthy that he can lose $6 billion from his piggy bank in one afternoon and not even blink.
Of course, as these Pandora Papers exposé is documenting, rich guys are not paying their taxes, legally. Here in their AmeriKKKa, they buy their Congressional representative and state legislator who work for them, to write laws that absolve them of paying taxes.
Meanwhile, our bought-and-paid government writes legislation obligating we ‘Little People’ to pay all the taxes, including their share.
Worse are the Drumpfian and Deplorable Red State Republi-con electorate who continually vote those tax cheats to political public office, enriching the politicians who bankrupt and impoverish their residents. No wonder Crooked Drumpf calls them ‘Poorly Educated’, ‘Suckers’, ‘Losers’.
You are reading an extended version of my Facebook post, safe and secure here at this Slim and Me web-site, away from Suckerburg’s clutches.
Frances Haugen is a Whistleblower who worked inside Facebook. She appeared in an interview on CBS ‘60 Minutes’. She described how Suckerburg, with Crooked Drumpf, participated in pushing the White supremist agenda, contributed to the incitement of Insurrection Wednesday.
Facebook Whistleblower Frances Haugen’s interview on CBS ‘60 Minutes’ (3 Oct 21):
‘Facebook is morally bankrupt. ‘ ‘Facebook betrayed Democracy. ‘. ‘Facebook got rid of integrity. Facebook will make less money with safety protections on. Facebook incentives are malevolent. Facebook is forcing politicians to take more extreme positions. Facebook shown it chooses profit over safety. ‘
– Frances Haugen, Facebook Whistleblower (CBS ‘60 Minutes’, 3 Oct 21; plus ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, 4 Oct 21)
‘Facebook are making material misstatements leading to financial irregularities. ‘
– Whistleblower legal aid
Additional ’60 Minutes’ interview of Frances Haugen.
This CBS News ‘60 Minutes’ interview made the rounds throughout the broadcast network news by Monday morning.
‘Zuckerberg is running a business that leads to bad outcomes. Hate speech leads to revenue. ‘
– CBS News (4 Oct 21)
‘Facebook is launching a defence. Facebook rolled back some of its emergency measures after the 2020 Election, it kept others in place. ‘
– NBC News (4 Oct 21)
‘The Whistleblower will testify against Facebook how the social media giant put profits ahead of public safety and said she has the documents to prove it. Facebook is a danger and points to their actions before the January 6th riot at the Capitol. Facebook turned off safety settings that led to the riot of January 6. Rioters used Facebook to rally support for their Insurrection. The Facebook algorithm incentivises hateful and divisive content. ‘
– NBC News (4 Oct 21)
Whistleblower: Facebook is misleading the public on progress against hate speech, violence, misinformation
Frances Haugen says in her time with Facebook she saw, “conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook.” Scott Pelley reports.
Her name is Frances Haugen. That is a fact that Facebook has been anxious to know since last month when an anonymous former employee filed complaints with federal law enforcement. The complaints say Facebook’s own research shows that it amplifies hate, misinformation and political unrest—but the company hides what it knows. One complaint alleges that Facebook’s Instagram harms teenage girls. What makes Haugen’s complaints unprecedented is the trove of private Facebook research she took when she quit in May. The documents appeared first, last month, in the Wall Street Journal. But tonight, Frances Haugen is revealing her identity to explain why she became the Facebook whistleblower.
Facebook’s response to 60 Minutes’ report, “The Facebook Whistleblower”
Facebook whistleblower says company incentivizes “angry, polarizing, divisive content”
Frances Haugen: The thing I saw at Facebook over and over again was there were conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook. And Facebook, over and over again, chose to optimize for its own interests, like making more money.
Frances Haugen is 37, a data scientist from Iowa with a degree in computer engineering and a Harvard master’s degree in business. For 15 years she’s worked for companies including Google and Pinterest.
Frances Haugen: I’ve seen a bunch of social networks and it was substantially worse at Facebook than anything I’d seen before.
Scott Pelley: You know, someone else might have just quit and moved on. And I wonder why you take this stand.
Frances Haugen: Imagine you know what’s going on inside of Facebook and you know no one on the outside knows. I knew what my future looked like if I continued to stay inside of Facebook, which is person after person after person has tackled this inside of Facebook and ground themselves to the ground.
Scott Pelley: When and how did it occur to you to take all of these documents out of the company?
Frances Haugen: At some point in 2021, I realized, “Okay, I’m gonna have to do this in a systemic way, and I have to get out enough that no one can question that this is real.”
She secretly copied tens of thousands of pages of Facebook internal research. She says evidence shows that the company is lying to the public about making significant progress against hate, violence and misinformation. One study she found, from this year, says, “we estimate that we may action as little as 3-5% of hate and about 6-tenths of 1% of V & I [violence and incitement] on Facebook despite being the best in the world at it.”
Scott Pelley: To quote from another one of the documents you brought out, “We have evidence from a variety of sources that hate speech, divisive political speech and misinformation on Facebook and the family of apps are affecting societies around the world.”
Frances Haugen: When we live in an information environment that is full of angry, hateful, polarizing content it erodes our civic trust, it erodes our faith in each other, it erodes our ability to want to care for each other, the version of Facebook that exists today is tearing our societies apart and causing ethnic violence around the world.
‘Ethnic violence’ including Myanmar in 2018 when the military used Facebook to launch a genocide.
Frances Haugen told us she was recruited by Facebook in 2019. She says she agreed to take the job only if she could work against misinformation because she had lost a friend to online conspiracy theories.
Frances Haugen: I never wanted anyone to feel the pain that I had felt. And I had seen how high the stakes were in terms of making sure there was high quality information on Facebook.
At headquarters, she was assigned to Civic Integrity which worked on risks to elections including misinformation. But after this past election, there was a turning point.
Frances Haugen: They told us, “We’re dissolving Civic Integrity.” Like, they basically said, “Oh good, we made it through the election. There wasn’t riots. We can get rid of Civic Integrity now.” Fast forward a couple months, we got the insurrection. And when they got rid of Civic Integrity, it was the moment where I was like, “I don’t trust that they’re willing to actually invest what needs to be invested to keep Facebook from being dangerous.”
Facebook says the work of Civic Integrity was distributed to other units. Haugen told us the root of Facebook’s problem is in a change that it made in 2018 to its algorithms—the programming that decides what you see on your Facebook news feed.
Frances Haugen: So, you know, you have your phone. You might see only 100 pieces of content if you sit and scroll on for, you know, five minutes. But Facebook has thousands of options it could show you.
The algorithm picks from those options based on the kind of content you’ve engaged with the most in the past.
Frances Haugen: And one of the consequences of how Facebook is picking out that content today is it is — optimizing for content that gets engagement, or reaction. But its own research is showing that content that is hateful, that is divisive, that is polarizing, it’s easier to inspire people to anger than it is to other emotions.
Scott Pelley: Misinformation, angry content– is enticing to people and keep–
Frances Haugen: Very enticing.
Scott Pelley:–keeps them on the platform.
Frances Haugen: Yes. Facebook has realized that if they change the algorithm to be safer, people will spend less time on the site, they’ll click on less ads, they’ll make less money.
Haugen says Facebook understood the danger to the 2020 Election. So, it turned on safety systems to reduce misinformation—but many of those changes, she says, were temporary.
Frances Haugen: And as soon as the election was over, they turned them back off or they changed the settings back to what they were before, to prioritize growth over safety.
And that really feels like a betrayal of democracy to me.
Facebook says some of the safety systems remained. But, after the election, Facebook was used by some to organize the January 6th insurrection. Prosecutors cite Facebook posts as evidence–photos of armed partisans and text including, “by bullet or ballot restoration of the republic is coming!” Extremists used many platforms, but Facebook is a recurring theme.
After the attack, Facebook employees raged on an internal message board copied by Haugen. “…Haven’t we had enough time to figure out how to manage discourse without enabling violence?” We looked for positive comments and found this, “I don’t think our leadership team ignores data, ignores dissent, ignores truth…” but that drew this reply, “welcome to Facebook! I see you just joined in November 2020… we have been watching… wishy-washy actions of company leadership for years now.” “…Colleagues… cannot conscience working for a company that does not do more to mitigate the negative effects of its platform.”
Scott Pelley: Facebook essentially amplifies the worst of human nature.
Frances Haugen: It’s one of these unfortunate consequences, right? No one at Facebook is malevolent, but the incentives are misaligned, right? Like, Facebook makes more money when you consume more content. People enjoy engaging with things that elicit an emotional reaction. And the more anger that they get exposed to, the more they interact and the more they consume.
That dynamic led to a complaint to Facebook by major political parties across Europe. This 2019 internal report obtained by Haugen says that the parties, “…feel strongly that the change to the algorithm has forced them to skew negative in their communications on Facebook… leading them into more extreme policy positions.”
Scott Pelley: The European political parties were essentially saying to Facebook the way you’ve written your algorithm is changing the way we lead our countries.
Frances Haugen: Yes. You are forcing us to take positions that we don’t like, that we know are bad for society. We know if we don’t take those positions, we won’t win in the marketplace of social media.
Evidence of harm, she says, extends to Facebook’s Instagram app.
Scott Pelley: One of the Facebook internal studies that you found talks about how Instagram harms teenage girls. One study says 13.5% of teen girls say Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse; 17% of teen girls say Instagram makes eating disorders worse.
Frances Haugen: And what’s super tragic is Facebook’s own research says, as these young women begin to consume this– this eating disorder content, they get more and more depressed. And it actually makes them use the app more. And so, they end up in this feedback cycle where they hate their bodies more and more. Facebook’s own research says it is not just the Instagram is dangerous for teenagers, that it harms teenagers, it’s that it is distinctly worse than other forms of social media.
Facebook said, just last week, it would postpone plans to create an Instagram for younger children.
Last month, Haugen’s lawyers filed at least 8 complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission which enforces the law in financial markets. The complaints compare the internal research with the company’s public face—often that of CEO Mark Zuckerberg—who testified remotely to Congress last March.
Mark Zuckerberg testimony on March 25: We have removed content that could lead to imminent real-world harm. We have built an unprecedented third-party fact checking program. The system isn’t perfect. But it is the best approach that we have found to address misinformation in line with our country’s values.
One of Frances Haugen’s lawyers, is John Tye. He’s the founder of a Washington legal group, called “Whistleblower Aid.”
Scott Pelley: What is the legal theory behind going to the SEC? What laws are you alleging have been broken?
John Tye: As a publicly-traded company, Facebook is required to not lie to its investors or even withhold material information. So, the SEC regularly brings enforcement actions, alleging that companies like Facebook and others are making material misstatements and omissions that affect investors adversely.
Scott Pelley: One of the things that Facebook might allege is that she stole company documents.
John Tye: The Dodd-Frank Act, passed over ten years ago at this point, created an Office of the Whistleblower inside the SEC. And one of the provisions of that law says that no company can prohibit its employees from communicating with the SEC and sharing internal corporate documents with the SEC.
Frances Haugen: I have a lot of empathy for Mark. and Mark has never set out to make a hateful platform. But he has allowed choices to be made where the side effects of those choices are that hateful, polarizing content gets more distribution and more reach.
Facebook declined an interview. But in a written statement to 60 Minutes it said, “every day our teams have to balance protecting the right of billions of people to express themselves openly with the need to keep our platform a safe and positive place. We continue to make significant improvements to tackle the spread of misinformation and harmful content. To suggest we encourage bad content and do nothing is just not true.”
“If any research had identified an exact solution to these complex challenges, the tech industry, governments, and society would have solved them a long time ago.”
Facebook is a $1 trillion company. Just 17 years old, it has 2.8 billion users, which is 60% of all internet-connected people on Earth. Frances Haugen plans to testify before Congress this week. She believes the federal government should impose regulations.
Frances Haugen: Facebook has demonstrated they cannot act independently Facebook, over and over again, has shown it chooses profit over safety. It is subsidizing, it is paying for its profits with our safety. I’m hoping that this will have had a big enough impact on the world that they get the fortitude and the motivation to actually go put those regulations into place. That’s my hope.
Produced by Maria Gavrilovic and Alex Ortiz. Broadcast associate, Michelle Karim. Edited by Michael Mongulla.
© 2021 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Correspondent, “60 Minutes”
Whistleblower: Facebook prioritizing growth over safety
Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program not living up to its name
Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga prepare for Bennett’s last big concert
California turns to new, high-tech helicopters to battle wildfires
Liz Cheney on being a Republican while opposing Donald Trump
Get the Newsletter
Get the best of 60 Minutes delivered to your inbox.
Four big takeaways from a tough hearing for Facebook
CHRIS MILLS RODRIGO AND REBECCA KLAR
10/05/21 05:09 PM EDT
This video cannot be played because of a technical error.
(Error Code: 102006)
Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen appeared before a Senate panel Tuesday that was fired up about the recent wave of revelations about the company.
Lawmakers focused on Facebook’s own research finding Instagram made body issues worse for 1 in 3 teenage girls and the platform’s decision not to share those results.
The Senate Commerce subcommittee on consumer protection also touched on algorithmic amplification of dangerous content, Facebook’s approach to moderation outside of the U.S. and how to craft policy.
Here are the biggest takeaways.
Haugen emerges as a real threat to Facebook
Witnesses at the last few congressional hearings focused on Facebook have fit into two categories: employees with vested interest in promoting the company’s interests or experts without insider knowledge of the social media giant’s operations.
Haugen’s unique position as a recent former employee not speaking on behalf of the company was on full display during her testimony.
Several times during Tuesday’s hearing she was able to give clear explanations of technical terms, like meaningful social interactions or engagement-based rankings, that have gotten muddled in the past.
For roughly three hours she confidently answered questions from lawmakers, pulling out specifics from the documents she obtained from Facebook with relative ease.
When Facebook released a statement shortly after the hearing wrapped dismissing Haugen for never attending “a decision-point meeting with C-level executives,” lawmakers jumped to her defense.
Subcommittee Chairman Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) called it “offensive and demeaning,” while Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass), who didn’t even participate in the hearing, tweeted that “attempts to smear Frances Haugen, discredit her expertise and undermine her time at Facebook are shameful.”
Haugen won’t just disappear after Tuesday’s hearing either. She is being backed by a well-resourced whistleblower defense firm, and her slick website suggests more appearances are coming.
Facebook has been able to dismiss previous critics for not knowing enough about internal operations but will have their work cut out for them doing the same to a former employee and veteran of the tech space.
Zuckerberg can’t stay silent much longer
Senators said Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg should testify yet again before the committee given Haugen’s testimony.
“When it comes to what we would hear differently from Mr. Zuckerberg, we have these documents that have been turned over now, and it allows us to have a better look, so that we can do a deeper dive and be able to ask more direct questions,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) told reporters.
Blumenthal said Zuckerberg needs to respond to why he rejected “seemingly worthwhile recommendations” as revealed through documents Haugen released.
During last week’s hearing with Facebook’s head of global safety, the executive, Antigone Davis, largely evaded questions about who would make final decisions on its controversial plan for “Instagram for kids” and other changes.
Haugen gave a more straightforward answer.
“Mark holds a very unique role in the tech industry, in that he holds over 55 percent of all the voting shares for Facebook. There are no similarly powerful companies that are as unilaterally controlled. In the end, the buck stops with Mark. There is no one currently holding Mark accountable but himself,” Haugen said.
Blumenthal said if Zuckerberg “feels there are any inaccuracies” after Haugen’s testimony, then there’s even more of an impetus for him to testify.
“If he is in any way in disagreement with anything that has been said here, he’s the one who ought to come forward. He’s the one who’s in charge. He’s the algorithm designer in chief,” Blumenthal told reporters.
Lawmakers are fired up
Tuesday’s hearing built on the bipartisan outrage directed at Davis last week, highlighting the rare unity across the aisle especially in regard to children’s safety.
“I have rarely if ever seen the kind of unanimity on display today and Thursday. If you closed your eyes without knowing who was talking, you wouldn’t know whether it was a Republican or Democrat, you wouldn’t know what part of the country they were from. Because everywhere, red state, blue state, east and west, every part of the country has the harms that are inflicted by Facebook and Instagram,” Blumenthal said.
Proposals to update online privacy and content moderation laws have stalled despite the shared rage, but lawmakers’ signaled that Haugen’s testimony and the related leaked documents could be pivotal in pushing proposals across the finish line.
“I think the time has come for action, and I think you are the catalyst for that action,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).
Klobuchar slammed the influence of lobbyists bogging down progress. “We have not done anything to update our privacy laws in this country, our federal privacy laws, nothing, zilch, in any major way. Why? Because there are lobbyists around every single corner of this building that have been hired by the tech industry,” she said.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ranking member of the full Commerce Committee, said the “disturbing” revelations about Facebook’s mental health effects on children underscores the need for swift congressional action.
“They show how urgent it is for Congress to act against powerful tech companies on behalf of children and the broader public,” Wicker said.
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) questioned Haugen on Facebook’s engagement-based ranking system and backed plans to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
“I would simply say let’s get to work,” Thune said.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a fierce proponent of updating children’s safety regulations, said Congress will take action whether or not Facebook cooperates on that front.
“Your time of invading our privacy, promoting toxic content and preying on children and teens is over. Congress will be taking action. You can work with us or not work with us,” Markey said. “We will act.”
Next steps remain unclear
Despite the bipartisanship, the next steps for policy were no clearer after questioning concluded.
Haugen herself identified more oversight and transparency as the solution to problems at the social media giant.
“As long as Facebook is operating in the shadows, hiding its research from public scrutiny, it is unaccountable,” she said in her opening remarks.
She also pushed for the creation of a body with regulatory authority over Facebook staffed with people capable of understanding research produced about social media.
Those proposals, while well-received by senators, do not figure prominently in any legislative proposals introduced this Congress. And deep disagreements remain over the proposals that are out there that could address the problems outlined with Facebook.
Markey highlighted his Kids Internet Design and Safety and Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection acts as a way to protect children from the mental health harms of social media platforms like Instagram.
Blackburn, however, suggested that enforcing existing laws about kids online — the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act — would be sufficient.
Establishing a federal data privacy framework also came up during the hearing, but lawmakers have failed to reach a bipartisan consensus on what that would look like despite years of negotiations.
Klobuchar called for movement on antitrust, arguing that “consolidation allows dominant platforms” to control industries and buy out potential competitors that could improve social media. While she got new support from Thune for investigating potential monopolization, legislation to overhaul competition laws remains frozen in the House.
Hillicon Valley — Presented by American Edge Project — Facebook…
Zuckerberg responds to Facebook whistleblower’s allegations
Haugen also came out against “the breaking up of Facebook,” saying that it would drain money from efforts to clean up the platform.
Some senators in both parties agreed that subpoenas should be issued to obtain the underlying data behind Facebook’s studies that the company has been reluctant to share, but other tangible action plans were hard to pull from the hearing.
Tuesday’s testimony appears likely to precipitate another congressional appearance by Zuckerberg as well, but what comes after all the hearings remains up in the air.
Whistleblower Haugen submitted Facebook’s own financial records to federal investigators. These federal securities regulators determined that Facebook’s business activities deliberately skewed data available to investors that inflated Facebook’s value favouring Suckerburg’s wealth, falsely (criminally?) boosted Facebook stock prices. This news dropt $6 billion off Facebook’s stock price of Zuck’s $1 trillion valuation. Imagine – Suckerburg’s one-day loss of $6 billion is a mere drop in his bucket.
So … Suckerburg threw his hissy fit and shut down his Facebook system to demonstrate how much he controls America, controls the world.
There you have it.
Please take note of the specific and the random memes and screen print images that may be attached to this article, that I present throughout this web-site. They add to the essence of this post.
Thank you to the Resources who contribute to this page. Acknowledgement and credit goes to those who create their social media content, essays, and images.
Kapung Khaf, Alana:
More news-spots about Suckerburg’s misbehaviours:
Pandora Papers expose how the International Wealth Class refuses to pay taxes, buys legislatures, hides their finances from society.
‘Here’s how the Mega-Rich and powerful get out of paying taxes. ‘