Facebook spreads hate, whistleblower tells UK lawmakers

#shorts #Facebook #Facebookwhistleblower
Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen says the company is "literally subsidizing hate" with their paid advertising structure.

For more on this story, please visit

Don't Miss: Valley of Hype: The Culture That Built Elizabeth Holmes
WATCH HERE:

Watch the 2021 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting on YouTube:

About Yahoo Finance:
At Yahoo Finance, you get free stock quotes, up-to-date news, portfolio management resources, international market data, social interaction and mortgage rates that help you manage your financial life.

Yahoo Finance Plus: With a subscription to Yahoo Finance Plus get the tools you need to invest with confidence. Discover new opportunities with expert research and investment ideas backed by technical and fundamental analysis. Optimize your trades with advanced portfolio insights, fundamental analysis, enhanced charting, and more.

Connect with Yahoo Finance:

[veronica]

When a whistleblower gets immediate attention, a 60 minutes interview and a congressional hearing while most whistleblowers go to jail you have to question what’s been presented. She is ultimately asking for government to take more control of social media. The under the radar Government control of social media will be elevated to “necessary”.

[mattmatt]

Honestly none of this matters, UNLESS the company is breaking the law/allowing things that are illegal, on their site, meaning, the definition of hate speech/things that need to be censored, is up to/defined by the individual company/property owner.

The main thing is, the first amendment protects companies AND individuals, from the government, meaning the government can't regulate speech, BUT companies can/home owners can/speech can be regulated on private property, that could be a house/property/ Walmart, that could be a privately owned server, website or APP, ALSO each business/property owner has the right to make their own rules on their own property.

Its not Mark Zuckerbergs/Facebooks responsibility to monitor your kids internet usage, thats the PARENTS responsibility/job, ALSO a website/company has a right to have what ever algorithms, community guidelines/user agreements/company policies, that they want, on their own site/property.

We ALREADY have ratings on content/age restrictions/regulations/the FTC/FCC/DOJ/other laws are ALREADY in place.

Another reason this doesn't matter, is, think about this, if Facebook was to TRY and stop, certain age/kids, from accessing FB, what's stopping your kids from looking at other content on the internet, such as pornography/communicating with child molesters/other people/content, parents should be monitoring/have other systems/routers security, in place, to prevent, certain devices/users, from going to certain sites/searching certain words/phrases/be a PARENT/take responsibility of your children.



Whistleblowers arent completely protected;

Whistleblowers are required to present information and other documents that can back up their claims when filing a dispute. If it is found that they are lying, they may be subjected to criminal charges. ... Whistleblower Protection does not always protect federal workers.

A whistleblower does not have unfettered permission to take documents.  “Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to prevent any law enforcement authority from bringing a civil or criminal action against any person for violating any provision of law.


Going public, isn't always the best option either:

Whistleblowing legislation is designed to protect people who blow the whistle in the right way, and for the right reasons. If you reveal your concerns via social media or by going to the press, you may not be entitled to receive the legal protection you'll need.

This may also mark you as a risk/problematic employee/prevent you from getting another job in the future.


NDAs forfeit whistleblowing eligibility and this is DEFINITELY something you need for certain things, for proprietary things, like and so on.


So whistleblowers do have their limitations and as you can see, they can also be limited/stopped all together, SOMETIMES, whistleblowers are good, but in this case its just a publicity stunt.

[gertjan]

She is promoting research but was it peer reviewed ?

[gertjan]

I use fb daily and I *never* get hateful ads.
So what should these algorithms do different other than resonate with a persons interest ?
Of course you cant handle the totality of it

[ssuwandi]

She is a Legend. Imagine the bullets points in her CV!! "I spearheaded FB public image rebranding" BOOM!