Facebook Whistleblower is a Trojan Horse for Censorship (1 Viewer)

[Max Power]

In the overall marketplace, I think it's good for different platforms to have different moderation policies. The ones with the better moderation policies will hopefully gain marketshare at the expense of the ones with worse moderation policies.

Personally, I'm more likely to visit platforms that limit trolling and propaganda and the intentional spread of misinformation. Other people with different preferences might want to spend time on GAB. It's good if both choices are offered, IMO.

I agree with you that we should be able to get different views from different platforms.  I worry that if congress steps in and/or 230 gets rewritten, they will applied it to a wide range of social media platforms.  That was one of Greenwald's concerns in the OP.  Substack doesn't have the moderation resources of the big names and may not survive depending on the requirements.  Possibly the same for GAB.

I asked Joe if these forums were considered "social media" or if it could fall under the umbrella of government censorship. Do you have a take on that?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I asked Joe if these forums were considered "social media" or if it could fall under the umbrella of government censorship. Do you have a take on that?

There is no formal legal definition of "social media" that I know of. Certainly these forums are an example of something that the government is not permitted to censor. (But it can ban child pornography here and other forms of non-protected speech.)

 

[unckeyherb]

Left-wing shows didn't silence him; they stopped inviting him on their shows. (He's not silenced since he still goes on right-wing shows.)

I think it's lame that right-wing entertainment shows on news channels* refuse to bring on guests who lean left, and left-wing entertainment shows on news channels refuse to bring on guests who lean right. They're responding to their audiences' preferences, I suppose. Left-leaning viewers like having MSNBC as their safe space, and right-leaning viewers like having Fox. It's regrettable, but I don't know what to do about it: it's just an upshot of capitalism.

I'd much prefer a world with more cross-over, less people sealing themselves off in bubbles.

The point remains, though, that Greenwald is currently part of the right-wing ecosystem, not part of the left-wing ecosystem. Describing him as a member of the left is very much like describing Alan Dershowitz as a member of the left: it's years out of date.

__________
*Actual news shows don't have guests, I don't think.

Yeah, I simply don't get this line of thinking.  Left leaning orgs don't invite the liberal on for whatever reason and the only outlet that does invite the liberal on is right leaning so therefore, since the liberal's only TV exposure is on right leaning show he is no longer a liberal.  That makes no sense.  I still haven't gotten an answer as to what conservative or right-wing view points the guy espouses.  That is what would typically define someone's political bent.  Their views.

ETA: this is derailing the point of the thread, so I'll stop posting about.  /hijack

 

[cockroach]

I don't know how it's accomplished so both sides are happy but there has to be a way to prevent stories/theories that can easily be proven false from being posted on social media.  I know some may say that violates rights to free speech but you aren't able to yell fire in a theatre, why can you spread a bunch of lies that rile people up?  Families and friendships are being torn apart by this and no way the country is going to come together with the current state of affairs.

We're on the verge of a time when anybody can make a believable video of anybody else saying whatever they want.   What's going to happen when someone posts a deep fake on Gab of Trump doing a video to his supporters urging them to purge their neighborhood of filthy democrat scum?  

 

[the rover]

Yeah, I simply don't get this line of thinking.  Left leaning orgs don't invite the liberal on for whatever reason and the only outlet that does invite the liberal on is right leaning so therefore, since the liberal's only TV exposure is on right leaning show he is no longer a liberal.  That makes no sense.  I still haven't gotten an answer as to what conservative or right-wing view points the guy espouses.  That is what would typically define someone's political bent.  Their views.

ETA: this is derailing the point of the thread, so I'll stop posting about.  /hijack

attacking the left is a right-wing view.  that's pretty much all he does now, which is why Fox has him on.  He is about self-promotion, and will say what he needs to to get his air time.  

 

[unckeyherb]

attacking the left is a right-wing view.  that's pretty much all he does now, which is why Fox has him on.  He is about self-promotion, and will say what he needs to to get his air time.  

I guess it depends on what policy he's actually attacking, right?  He doesn't simply attack "The Left".

 

[Max Power]

I guess it depends on what policy he's actually attacking, right?  He doesn't simply attack "The Left".

You're trying too hard to bring facts into this conversation. He went against the narrative and is no longer allowed in the cult.

 

[Rich Conway]

I'm pretty sure that when you make the statement, "The left thinks they are morally superior to us," that can be counted as attacking the left.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Geez, this is one of the few things that seemed to have interest from both sides when she was addressing the government.  leave it to these threads to keep it as a LvR pissing match.  

 

[Max Power]

Geez, this is one of the few things that seemed to have interest from both sides when she was addressing the government.  leave it to these threads to keep it as a LvR pissing match.  

I blame facebook

 

[unckeyherb]

Geez, this is one of the few things that seemed to have interest from both sides when she was addressing the government.  leave it to these threads to keep it as a LvR pissing match.  

I don’t se it as a l vs r pissing match.  It’s a label-things-correctly issue.  Greenwald is a liberal.  He recently has taken left leaning liberals to task for an array of issues.  The response is not to challenge his ideas, but rather to label the guy a right winger in order to dismiss what he says.  It’s exactly the type of lefty illiberal behavior he talks about.  It’s a kind of gaslighting that makes it super convenient to shrug off anything he says.  And it’s really annoying.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

I don’t se it as a l vs r pissing match.  It’s a label-things-correctly issue.  Greenwald is a liberal.  He recently has taken left leaning liberals to task for an array of issues.  The response is not to challenge his ideas, but rather to label the guy a right winger in order to dismiss what he says.  It’s exactly the type of lefty illiberal behavior he talks about.  It’s a kind of gaslighting that makes it super convenient to shrug off anything he says.  And it’s really annoying.  

. and none of that seems to have much to do with what the whistle-blower was trying to convey to Washington.  but here we are with people arguing about this, censorship, and the sides are 100% predictable.  just odd we always go down these paths in here. 

 

[unckeyherb]

. and none of that seems to have much to do with what the whistle-blower was trying to convey to Washington.  but here we are with people arguing about this, censorship, and the sides are 100% predictable.  just odd we always go down these paths in here. 

Yeah, which is why I said this sidebar was derailing the thread.  Should have stopped when I said I would.

 

[Nugget]

I don’t se it as a l vs r pissing match.  It’s a label-things-correctly issue.  Greenwald is a liberal.  He recently has taken left leaning liberals to task for an array of issues.  The response is not to challenge his ideas, but rather to label the guy a right winger in order to dismiss what he says.  It’s exactly the type of lefty illiberal behavior he talks about.  It’s a kind of gaslighting that makes it super convenient to shrug off anything he says.  And it’s really annoying.  

I really don't care how you label Greenwald.  In his first two paragraphs, he was attacking the whistleblower.  That turned me off to him.  She quit her job and is testifying in front of Congress and Greenwald is acting like a jerk.  That is why I would shrug off what he says.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Again, I can't encourage listening to that pod enough.   Your usual snarky reply aside, that is not what we are talking about.   I guess your next smart ### reply is to tell people not to use the internet?

We know that that algos push anorexia videos to girls - they've shown that happens even if you just start with healthy food info.   They push pedo info, how to kill yourself, conspiracy theories, misinformation, etc..     These aps and sites are purposely formulated to keep people addicted and logging on through all the tools we have talked about - anything from the infinite scroll to notifications to outrage and misinformation.   

There could be pretty quick and easy fix so that this crap is not what is amplified and suggested millions of times.  You don't need to ban that, you need to not amplify the #### out of it.   

It is exactly what you are talking about. You are basically saying the internet is too addictive and that people need the government to save them.

Thats just an excuse to get government control. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

It is exactly what you are talking about. You are basically saying the internet is too addictive and that people need the government to save them.

Thats just an excuse to get government control. 

No, I am not talking about unfriending people and the other snarky things you listed in your post.  

Of course the bolded is a complete exaggeration of my point too, but I guess that's to be expected as well. 

I know , but I can't imagine most people who took the time to watch the doc or listen to the pod that people are talking about would say that something should be done.   It's not as simple as blocking somebody or not clicking on a news link, and it's only getting worse.  

 

[unckeyherb]

I really don't care how you label Greenwald.  In his first two paragraphs, he was attacking the whistleblower.  That turned me off to him.  She quit her job and is testifying in front of Congress and Greenwald is acting like a jerk.  That is why I would shrug off what he says.

Sorry, but what in these first two paragraphs do you consider attacking the whistleblower?

Much is revealed by who is bestowed hero status by the corporate media. This week's anointed avatar of stunning courage is Frances Haugen, a former Facebook product manager being widely hailed as a "whistleblower” for providing internal corporate documents to the Wall Street Journal relating to the various harms which Facebook and its other platforms (Instagram and WhatsApp) are allegedly causing.

The social media giant hurts America and the world, this narrative maintains, by permitting misinformation to spread (presumably more so than cable outlets and mainstream newspapers do virtually every week); fostering body image neurosis in young girls through Instagram (presumably more so than fashion magazines, Hollywood and the music industry do with their glorification of young and perfectly-sculpted bodies); promoting polarizing political content in order to keep the citizenry enraged, balkanized and resentful and therefore more eager to stay engaged (presumably in contrast to corporate media outlets, which would never do such a thing); and, worst of all, by failing to sufficiently censor political content that contradicts liberal orthodoxies and diverges from decreed liberal Truth. On Tuesday, Haugen's star turn took her to Washington, where she spent the day testifying before the Senate about Facebook's dangerous refusal to censor even more content and ban even more users than they already do.

 

[Nugget]

Sorry, but what in these first two paragraphs do you consider attacking the whistleblower?

Much is revealed by who is bestowed hero status by the corporate media. This week's anointed avatar of stunning courage is Frances Haugen, a former Facebook product manager being widely hailed as a "whistleblower” for providing internal corporate documents to the Wall Street Journal relating to the various harms which Facebook and its other platforms (Instagram and WhatsApp) are allegedly causing.

The social media giant hurts America and the world, this narrative maintains, by permitting misinformation to spread (presumably more so than cable outlets and mainstream newspapers do virtually every week); fostering body image neurosis in young girls through Instagram (presumably more so than fashion magazines, Hollywood and the music industry do with their glorification of young and perfectly-sculpted bodies); promoting polarizing political content in order to keep the citizenry enraged, balkanized and resentful and therefore more eager to stay engaged (presumably in contrast to corporate media outlets, which would never do such a thing); and, worst of all, by failing to sufficiently censor political content that contradicts liberal orthodoxies and diverges from decreed liberal Truth. On Tuesday, Haugen's star turn took her to Washington, where she spent the day testifying before the Senate about Facebook's dangerous refusal to censor even more content and ban even more users than they already do.

 

[unckeyherb]

Much is revealed by who is bestowed hero status by the corporate media. This week's anointed avatar of stunning courage is Frances Haugen, a former Facebook product manager being widely hailed as a "whistleblower” for providing internal corporate documents to the Wall Street Journal relating to the various harms which Facebook and its other platforms (Instagram and WhatsApp) are allegedly causing.

The social media giant hurts America and the world, this narrative maintains, by permitting misinformation to spread (presumably more so than cable outlets and mainstream newspapers do virtually every week); fostering body image neurosis in young girls through Instagram (presumably more so than fashion magazines, Hollywood and the music industry do with their glorification of young and perfectly-sculpted bodies); promoting polarizing political content in order to keep the citizenry enraged, balkanized and resentful and therefore more eager to stay engaged (presumably in contrast to corporate media outlets, which would never do such a thing); and, worst of all, by failing to sufficiently censor political content that contradicts liberal orthodoxies and diverges from decreed liberal Truth. On Tuesday, Haugen's star turn took her to Washington, where she spent the day testifying before the Senate about Facebook's dangerous refusal to censor even more content and ban even more users than they already do.

Yeah, literally zero of what you bolded is attacking her.  Its attacking the media.  

 

[Nugget]

Yeah, literally zero of what you bolded is attacking her.  Its attacking the media.  

It diminishes her role, what she is doing, and changed the message to be a censorship message.  Which is what GG wanted.  

 

[Max Power]

It diminishes her role, what she is doing, and changed the message to be a censorship message.  Which is what GG wanted.  

What message do you think she is trying to push?

When a whistleblower gets this much air time overnight, there is a reason for it.  

 

[Nugget]

What message do you think she is trying to push?

When a whistleblower gets this much air time overnight, there is a reason for it.  

Facebook and Instagram are optimized to maximize growth and engagement, at the expense of general wellbeing of its users.  The impact of social media on children - specifically suicidal thoughts, eating disorders, and body image issues - are known to  Facebook and they choose to mislead and misdirect, hiding their findings.  

 

[Max Power]

Facebook and Instagram are optimized to maximize growth and engagement, at the expense of general wellbeing of its users.  The impact of social media on children - specifically suicidal thoughts, eating disorders, and body image issues - are known to  Facebook and they choose to mislead and misdirect, hiding their findings.  

It would be great if it stopped there.  But she continued on to political misinformation and all the Jan 6th stuff. 

I think it's bad on facebook to promote that, but it isn't illegal and many other companies do it too.  Magazines have airbrushed models for years.  TV shows are centered around looks.  

Do you think any changes congress makes in regards to this whistlesblower's claims are going to stop at the mental wellbeing for children?  No. This will lead to massive censorship.  You can count on it.   

 

[Nugget]

It would be great if it stopped there.  But she continued on to political misinformation and all the Jan 6th stuff. 

I think it's bad on facebook to promote that, but it isn't illegal and many other companies do it too.  Magazines have airbrushed models for years.  TV shows are centered around looks.  

Do you think any changes congress makes in regards to this whistlesblower's claims are going to stop at the mental wellbeing for children?  No. This will lead to massive censorship.  You can count on it.   

I don’t think Congress will make any changes. They are inept. 

 

[Shutout]

She wasn't a whistle blower.  She was simply, at best, a disgruntled employee, by definition.  One who has shown her level (or lack thereof) of dignity and morals by stating that FB being down was "dividing democracy" and suggesting to the hearing committee that "someone like her" is what they need to regulate and call the shots.  

This situation is transparent and really reeks of self-promotion. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

She wasn't a whistle blower.  She was simply, at best, a disgruntled employee, by definition.  One who has shown her level (or lack thereof) of dignity and morals by stating that FB being down was "dividing democracy" and suggesting to the hearing committee that "someone like her" is what they need to regulate and call the shots.  

This situation is transparent and really reeks of self-promotion. 

I cant believe people fell for this whole "whistlebower" thing.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Sorry, but what in these first two paragraphs do you consider attacking the whistleblower?

Who cares if she was attacked? She should be attacked. 

She is taking part in an act. This deserves a ton of criticism.

 

[Rich Conway]

It's interesting to me that generally the same group of people who screamed about censorship (and, in many cases, screamed about behind the scenes government collusion) when Twitter banned Trump are now shouting to the rooftops that private platforms should be allowed to moderate however they want without government involvement.

 

[KarmaPolice]

It also seems like this thread has devolved into focusing on her "motivations" or what a whistle-blower is vs. the message she was getting out there.  

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

It's interesting to me that generally the same group of people who screamed about censorship (and, in many cases, screamed about behind the scenes government collusion) when Twitter banned Trump are now shouting to the rooftops that private platforms should be allowed to moderate however they want without government involvement.

Now do the reverse 

 

[jon_mx]

In the overall marketplace, I think it's good for different platforms to have different moderation policies. The ones with the better moderation policies will hopefully gain marketshare at the expense of the ones with worse moderation policies.

Personally, I'm more likely to visit platforms that limit trolling and propaganda and the intentional spread of misinformation. Other people with different preferences might want to spend time on GAB. It's good if both choices are offered, IMO.

In theory that is a good thing.  In practice I have never seen moderation ever not be a tool for suppression alternative views.  Modern day liberalism is obsessed with it and sees any alternative views as hate speech.  The right is more likely to mock opposing views, while modern liberals are completely intolerant of even seeing opposing views.  I have seen no evidence that modern day liberalism supports a robust freedom of speech.  Traditional liberals like Bill Maher are on an island. 

This new wokist liberalism has over taken the social media monopolies and are actively preventing competition. 

 

[Max Power]

It's interesting to me that generally the same group of people who screamed about censorship (and, in many cases, screamed about behind the scenes government collusion) when Twitter banned Trump are now shouting to the rooftops that private platforms should be allowed to moderate however they want without government involvement.

I think most of us are saying no to censorship in general and government censorship is way worse for America than private sector censorship. 

 

[jon_mx]

It's interesting to me that generally the same group of people who screamed about censorship (and, in many cases, screamed about behind the scenes government collusion) when Twitter banned Trump are now shouting to the rooftops that private platforms should be allowed to moderate however they want without government involvement.

What fool is shouting from the rooftops wanting corporate monopolies to censor speech however they like?  I despise any attempts to thrawt legitimate political free speech.  I wish there were leftists who support free speech. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This is a worthwhile clip, IMO:

https://youtu.be/D-4qBsTkqT4

(Sorry, I'm too lazy to describe it.)

 

[[scooter]]

He’s going on “right wing shows” because the left wing has decided to silence him, not because he’s right wing.  The things he’s talking about, freedom of speech, truth from the fourth estate, the perils of a surveillance state, the evils of imperialistic intervention wars by the US.  All used to be LIBERAL ideals.    Now he’s a right winger because Tucker Carlson is the only person that’s willing to talk to him.  What a crock. 

Does Greenwald vigorously defend the free speech right of the liberal media to not invite him onto their programs?

And does Greenwald simultaneously criticize conservative media for refusing to promote his RINO counterparts?

 

[unckeyherb]

Does Greenwald vigorously defend the free speech right of the liberal media to not invite him onto their programs?

And does Greenwald simultaneously criticize conservative media for refusing to promote his RINO counterparts?

I presume so.  I’ve never heard him complain about it?  
who are his Rino counterparts?  

 

[Snotbubbles]

Liberal?  He is a Fox News contributor and he claims to be banned by MSNBC.   If he hadn’t framed his argument around attacking a whistleblower, I may be interested. There are much more interesting, less polarizing political conversations happening around social media and exponential tech. 

Donna Brazile was a Fox News contributor, does that disqualify her from being a liberal?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Good essay by Jeff Maurer here:

Facebook Isn't the Problem; Facebook Is the Software the Problem Currently Uses

I agree with his take.

 

[Navin Johnson]

Glenn Greenwald is a liberal. 

His concerns about passing greater content moderation on platforms should concern everyone.  

Maybe @Joe Bryant can shed a bit of light on the subject for me, but wouldn't message boards fall under the umbrella of regulating social media platforms? 

He's not a liberal he's a progressive

 

[Navin Johnson]

Liberal?  He is a Fox News contributor and he claims to be banned by MSNBC.   If he hadn’t framed his argument around attacking a whistleblower, I may be interested. There are much more interesting, less polarizing political conversations happening around social media and exponential tech. 

MSNBC won't have progressives on because they don't want to be called out from the left. 

 

[Navin Johnson]

He's more mercenary than anything.   If once he was a liberal, he isn't anymore. 

His main goal now is self-promotion.

No, he just recognizes that the moderates will use the same tactics on the progressives that they do on the conservatives. Eight years ago, BHO was joking about the 80s wanting their foreign policy back. Now anyone who out flanks them to the right, or the left, is a Russian asset 

 

[Navin Johnson]

I don't think anyone would describe Greenwald as a traditional conservative. Rather, he is (currently) a right-wing personality. Being a traditional conservative and being a right-wing personality often have nothing to do with each other these days. See, for example: Donald Trump.

If you want to know why someone would call Greenwald a right-wing personality, start by observing that he goes on right-wing shows and says things that right-wingers applaud, but not the reverse. Look at who is cheering him and who is deriding him in this thread. I think that's a giveaway.

The conservstives like him because the enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that. Progressives like him becsuse, well he's progressive. 

What position of his, outside of using Fox as a platform brings you to the conclusion that he leans right?  Watch any progressive outlet and they all love him.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I know I am am broken record about the podcast, but Your Undivided Attention just released the interview they did with Frances Haugen.    I would highly recommend that podcast in general and that episode for sure.    

I think some of it on our part is tunnel vision and looking at in through our country's POV.   Seemed like a bit of her beef was the system in general, but she was talking quite a bit about other countries on the pod.  

 

[parasaurolophus]

I know I am am broken record about the podcast, but Your Undivided Attention just released the interview they did with Frances Haugen.    I would highly recommend that podcast in general and that episode for sure.    

I think some of it on our part is tunnel vision and looking at in through our country's POV.   Seemed like a bit of her beef was the system in general, but she was talking quite a bit about other countries on the pod.  

But what she saw at Facebook was that the company consistently and knowingly prioritized profits over public safety. So Frances made the courageous decision to blow the whistle — which resulted in the biggest disclosure in the history of Facebook, and in the history of social media.

Gee why wont any conservatives just listen to this podcast that is aligned with my views.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

But what she saw at Facebook was that the company consistently and knowingly prioritized profits over public safety. So Frances made the courageous decision to blow the whistle — which resulted in the biggest disclosure in the history of Facebook, and in the history of social media.

Gee why wont any conservatives just listen to this podcast that is aligned with my views.  

So mark you down for not bothering to listen to it? 

Yes, they go a bit overboard with the intro, but I do find it interesting that you turned it into a liberal/conservative thing just on the intro.  

ETA: as many people that talk about and seemed to get something out of the NF doc on both sides of the aisle, I would think a lot would get similar out a podcast from the same people that does a deeper dive.  I don't care if it's conservatives or liberals listening. 

 

[Nugget]

But what she saw at Facebook was that the company consistently and knowingly prioritized profits over public safety. So Frances made the courageous decision to blow the whistle — which resulted in the biggest disclosure in the history of Facebook, and in the history of social media.

Gee why wont any conservatives just listen to this podcast that is aligned with my views.  

I thought conservatives were all about Section 230 and not letting Facebook censor their views.  If you want to work on a plan to get more point of views out there and not let big tech decide what to spoon feed you, you should join the conversation.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

I thought conservatives were all about Section 230 and not letting Facebook censor their views.  If you want to work on a plan to get more point of views out there and not let big tech decide what to spoon feed you, you should join the conversation.  

Evidently the podcast is too liberal because I suggested it?  

I know you are a fan - did you catch the episode yet?    One thing I thought was interesting was their discussion about the possibilities of capping the number of posts/requests, etc.   Also the part about how they handle invites and how that starts to effect your feed should be troublesome to anybody.  

 

[Nugget]

Evidently the podcast is too liberal?  

I know you are a fan - did you catch the episode yet?    One thing I thought was interesting was their discussion about the possibilities of capping the number of posts/requests, etc.   Also the part about how they handle invites and how that starts to effect your feed should be troublesome to anybody.  

Not yet - I have a 4 hour car ride on Friday - I'll catch up then.  

I don't recall a left/right pushback when the Social Dilemma came out last year.   Maybe it is just an anti-regulation thing, but there also seems to be a general disdain of whistleblowers from the right.   

 

[KarmaPolice]

Not yet - I have a 4 hour car ride on Friday - I'll catch up then.  

I don't recall a left/right pushback when the Social Dilemma came out last year.   Maybe it is just an anti-regulation thing, but there also seems to be a general disdain of whistleblowers from the right.   

Ah, yes.   That makes more sense.   

I don't remember a left/right divide on the doc either.   That's why I've brought it up so many times - it seemed like everybody got something out of that movie, no matter where they are on the political spectrum.  That's why the response from him was odd to me, as is the general lack of interest in the pod around here (and I thought quite a few around here were into pods)   Oh well.  

 

[parasaurolophus]

So mark you down for not bothering to listen to it? 

Yes, they go a bit overboard with the intro, but I do find it interesting that you turned it into a liberal/conservative thing just on the intro.  

ETA: as many people that talk about and seemed to get something out of the NF doc on both sides of the aisle, I would think a lot would get similar out a podcast from the same people that does a deeper dive.  I don't care if it's conservatives or liberals listening. 

Of course i didnt listen. That woman isnt a whistleblower. She isnt courageous. It wasnt the biggest disclosure in the history of social media. 

You have repeatedly pimped it. Let it go. 

People arent wasting an hour of their life because they trust that such a slanted and ridiculous intro was just a little overboard.