By Michael Brendan Dougherty
Wednesday, October 06, 2021
It’s really not hard to envision that Frances
Haugen, the “Facebook Whistleblower,” is going to get the Hollywood
treatment soon. She has already provided the origin story. She saw a friend get
radicalized by content online. This is meant to give the story a personal
drama. Even a relatable one — everyone seems to have someone in his life who
shares wild conspiracy theories he got from social-media platforms.
But the only question is whether journalists between now
and then will uncover whether she specifically sought out a job on Facebook’s
misinformation because of her preexisting political commitments. According
to a report on The Daily Wire (more on them in a minute), Haugen is a donor to
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She’s working with the press firm that was formerly
run by current White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki.
She seems to have spent almost her entire time at
Facebook preparing for and building towards this grand reveal. From The
Daily Wire’s report:
Haugen’s case has some similarities
to the Ukraine/impeachment case. She carefully fed internal Facebook documents
to the Wall Street Journal, working with Zaid and his law partners
John Tye, a former Obama State Department official, and Andrew Bakaj, who
worked for Democratic senators including Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.
And it’s not hard to know that Democrats wanted to take
down Facebook. Facebook was blamed for Brexit and for Donald Trump’s election.
“We can have democracy — or we can have social networks that allow the spread
of weaponized disinformation about our elections,” raged Hillary Clinton after
her loss.
You may recall that after those years, there was a
similar blitz-media rollout on the evils of Cambridge Analytica, a conservative
outfit that did research on populist voters across Facebook related to both Brexit
and Donald Trump. Cambridge Analytica used the same exact tools that the Obama
campaign had pioneered in 2012, but used them less widely, less invasively, and less effectively than the
Obama 2012 campaign did. When Obama won, Facebook’s role was hailed. Digital masterminds were doing the great work of leading us all to the
sunlit uplands of progressive utopia.
When Hillary lost, and Brexit happened, it became obvious
that the age of social-media users had climbed up and had begun to reflect a
given country’s population more accurately. Precisely because social media were
freer of the supervisory intervention of mainstream-media institutions, which
are dominated by liberals, it seemed in some way to favor conservatives.
Outlets such as The Daily Wire, one of the few conservative news
outlets aggressively pursuing a Facebook-led growth strategy, dominate the
top-ten story feeds on the site.
Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, and almost the whole
establishment came down hard on Mark Zuckerberg. The panic about misinformation
was launched. And where did it lead? It led to years of the mainstream media
pumping misinformation about Russian servers and Russian real-estate deals into
circulation. And then it led to social-media companies censoring, restricting,
and trying to bury the very true stories around Hunter Biden’s laptop.
It led to Facebook’s extraordinary intervention into the
Irish abortion referendum. After the government and most of the mainstream
press had lined up for repeal of constitutional provisions restricting
abortion, the campaign for retaining those views depended entirely on social
media. On the very day of their first big ad buy, Facebook announced that there
was a foreign threat to the integrity of the Irish referendum and suspended all
online advertising — disproportionately affecting the pro-life campaign. No one
has since explained what that foreign threat was. Really, it was Facebook
itself.
Left-leaning critics of Facebook — Haugen very much
included — have a very difficult time distinguishing the behavior of
conservatives on Facebook from the effect of Facebook’s design on conservative
belief. That is, for the Left, Facebook and other social-media platforms are a
portal through which they can observe all the unapproved things right-leaning
voters say to each other. Their vain wish is that reliable progressive liars
like Dan Rather can be put back in charge of the information space. That is why
there is a rolling campaign — from Cambridge Analytica to “the Facebook
whistleblower” — to get social-media companies more on board with progressive messaging.
In my view, Facebook and other giants do pose real
threats to democratic self-government, to national sovereignty, and to the
mental health and privacy of their users. These need to be sorted out very
quickly. But don’t fall for this ongoing whistleblower operation. The failure
of Facebook to stop conservatives and populists from talking with one another,
and the failure to sufficiently propagandize and intervene in national debates,
is not the problem with Facebook.
No comments:
Post a Comment