The person who cared about leaking information directly from the Facebook kitchen, reveal her identity. She is the former Facebook CEO of Frances Hogan. The social network was accused of ignoring problems and prioritizing “growth over security”.
There will be nothing unusual about the leaks. Google and other IT companies have faced similar problems in the past. They have been accused of widespread manipulation of their users. And with the content. Leaks about the practices of IT companies were only published by alternative media. The others were silent and forgiving.
From control to censorship
But this time, it was a little different. Leaks denigrating Facebook began to be published in the major global media with great appetite. Especially left and forward. Facebook blames it for failing to control content and leaves plenty of room for groups critical of coronavirus vaccines.
Mark Zuckerberg has – once again – become a public enemy.
Part of the audience welcomed this as good news. However, the policy of IT monopolies that monitor our privacy and manipulate our behavior must be controlled. and nurtured But appearance is deceiving in this case.
Behind the escapes and subsequent attacks on Zuckerberg is not just an attempt to protect the public interest. Rather, the opposite is true. The impetus for leaks and pressure from the progressive media to lead Facebook is to get this network to follow the example of Google (Youtubu) or Twitter. And start more active management = content monitoring. That is, ban “toxic” groups, accounts and their users (this word is commonly used against those who deviate from the specified line).
Facebook, of course, is already doing that to a large extent. In January, he belonged to the hit group of the media oligarch, which hired Trump and his team. Explaining that Trump is a threat to security.
However, many argue that Facebook is not stable enough. Unlike Google (Youtubu), which in cooperation with activists in large blocks bans its users. Sometimes because they are said to be extremists, other times because they criticize pandemic and immunization policies…
A look at history
This problem – and the difference between Facebook and Google – is not new. He’s been here at least since 2016.
There have been two major incidents this year (incidents from the perspective of the oligarchy and the ruling elites). The first was the British decision in the Brexit referendum.
The second is Donald Trump’s election victory over Hillary Clinton.
The culprits are the social networks, where critics of the European Union or opponents of the US Democrats and Clinton had a large space.
Guardians of order and progress decided that social networks needed reform. The old sacred principle that the Internet and online space should be politically neutral and open has fallen away. Google and other “conscious” IT companies have been leading the changes and fighting Trump. They made no secret of their intention to ban “inappropriate content”. Presumably in the interest of the cleanliness of public places.
A small example: during the US election campaign, the media and social networks withheld information about the son of Joe Biden, who was supposed to be involved in corruption cases. It was a hoax. Facebook also joined the blockade, albeit temporarily.
After the elections, it turned out that it was not a hoax but a reality. Investigators were interested in the young Biden.
Facebook Zuckerberg did not opt for an activist (censor) approach from 2016 to 2020, but he did choose a cautious approach. Try to balance the requirements of political regulation of content – and strive to be open to all users who abide by the law and rules. Censorship on Facebook was occasional and limited.
Angry Gyrog Soros
Of course, Zuckerberg did not do this out of love for Republicans nor out of love for the ideals of justice and freedom. The motives were mostly commercial. Facebook is not just Zuckerberg and other contributors. Facebook is a global community of billions of weight users. or gravity.
A company that does not build an elitist but global network must ensure neutrality and openness. It must accept a wide range of clients. Even conservatives, believers, populists, nationalists…
Therefore, Zuckerberg chose only the minimal in the regulation of political content. However, he did get a vice. He has also been criticized for manipulating content. Even for not doing it seriously enough and flat.
By the way, the biggest critic of the Facebook administration was George Soros, the American oligarch and founder of the OSF network of enterprises. Facebook pissed him off. blame him of Trump’s success and called for the regulation of content before the 2020 elections with a clear goal: to not allow Trump to win the election again thanks to the free space on social networks.
Soros even challenged Zuckerberg to leave Facebook. He accused him of “secret deals with Trump.” He did it openly and without any evidence. Just. The method says…
Where were the fact-checkers then? Where are the fighters against deceptions and conspiracies?
They were hiding.
The contents of the accusation
We must add that when organizing social networks we must distinguish between two completely different things. The first is content control that eliminates illegal posts. Those who spread hatred or incite violence or slander.
This regulation is correct. Public space should be reserved for those who respect the law and basic rules of decency.
However, it is this path (verifying user posts) that is constantly rejected by all large networks and media. Including those who are icons of progressive journalism such as CNN, Guardian, BBC… they claim that they cannot be held responsible for the content of the millions of comments on their social media profiles (and for this reason, CNN has taken down their social media profiles in Australia) .
The second thing that mentions regulation is political control over content. Thus, narrowing the target space for people like Trump, Salvini, Urban… Such regulation is highly controversial. socially and legally. Because it is, in fact, censorship decided by private media organizations. and their third-sector activists.
However, this type of regulation or oversight is increasingly required and preferred by “law enforcement officers”.
Censorship in their submission no longer affects not only politics but also science. For example, American virologist and immunologist Robert Malone is facing a media blockade. Only because he is a critic of the mass use of those vaccines that use mRNA technology.
As for the allegations against Facebook, she has a relatively clear point. Former manager Francis Hogan (originally with Google) was furious that Facebook only launched a security system (extensive control and possible ban of users) during the US election for a short time. After the elections, the private security system was again released. Facebook also accuses her of contributing to the riots and occupying the branch.
Haugen—and the media that makes her a star—appears to want Facebook to permanently operate in “security agency” mode.
Its main complaint is that Facebook “prioritises growth over security.”
If we move the optics a little bit, it’s held back by the fact that Facebook’s own company prefers to work on politics.
This is not the case with progressive companies. but? Users marked as toxic by the aware companion should be deleted immediately. forever. Regardless of losses for the company and its shareholders.
Let’s not forget, the other thing that is being used against Zuckerberg is his accusation of corrupting youth.
This no longer leaves any cold heart.
Facebook has become a target not only for the left-wing media, but also for the angry public.
Shortly thereafter, Mark Zuckerberg’s network (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and Messenger) experienced a massive outage. and the associated financial losses. Some media outlets suggest that the collapse may have been deliberate provocations by disgruntled employees from within the company or attacks by ethics auditors. However, we can put those guesses aside for now.
Crucially, Facebook has been, is, and will continue to be under pressure.
So it “gets better”.
Critics of social networks can certainly agree that they need stricter regulation.
However, it is important that this be done through laws. and in the public interest. Because today it is solved somewhere only in the background. Under the leadership of private data holders and political activists. They arbitrarily decide who to throw a damn on the Internet. This is done without a broader legal basis, without giving specific reasons, without the possibility of self-defense and appeal …
Protecting users’ privacy should be a priority; protect children and young people from Internet addiction; Control hate contributions that violate the law.
Above all, there must be the principle that managers of global public space must be politically neutral.
In other words, global networks must prioritize the freedom and interests of their users. until growth. Not “safety”, which only serves as a talisman for purges.
“Organizer. Pop culture aficionado. Avid zombie scholar. Travel expert. Freelance web guru.”