Social Media

The Facebook Papers Are a Big Fat Nothingburger

The mainstream media's fear of Mark Zuckerberg is not supported by the documents.

|

More than a dozen mainstream media organizations published reports today on the so-called Facebook Papers, a trove of internal company documents obtained and released by former Facebook employee Frances Haugen. The headlines promised dramatic revelations and damning indictments.

"Insiders say Facebook's CEO chose growth over safety," reports The Washington Post. For Axios, the Facebook Papers paint the social media company as "a brutish corporate actor that prioritizes its business over safety." Bloomberg News tweets that the documents provide "rare, vivid insight into ways Facebook has faltered in its mission."

The gap between those sensational claims and what actually appears in the articles is stark. If this is the best The New York Times, the Associated Press, etc., could do, then the Facebook Papers are a nothingburger.

As when Haugen first came forward—providing information that formed the basis of a series of Wall Street Journal reports—the real takeaway is that Facebook has been struggling to attract the young users it wants, faces robust competition, and generates apoplectic denunciation from mainstream journalists mostly because they resent the social media giant for shaking up the news industry.

There are, to be clear, some decent reasons in here to criticize Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The Washington Post reports that he was intimately involved with the company's decision to comply with the Vietnamese government's demand for greater censorship of political dissidents. Though even then, it's debatable what Zuckerberg should do when authoritarian governments demand content moderation. Should Facebook pull out of Vietnam, depriving the country of the site entirely? Is a censored version of Facebook worse than no Facebook at all?

Note as well that bowing to the Vietnamese government's demand for greater censorship is being treated as a bad thing by some of the same outlets that are shaming Facebook for not bowing to the U.S. government's request for greater censorship. The site's failure to take down extremism, hate speech, and misinformation related to U.S. presidential elections and the COVID-19 pandemic is considered a grave moral failing. U.S. senators scream at Facebook for doing the bidding of other governments while engaged in the very act of trying to compel Facebook to do the bidding of the U.S. Senate.

That's the central idea behind the mainstream media's framing of the Facebook Papers: The social media site is unsafe because there's too much content that the mainstream media and the government would prefer users not see. They're upset that the person in charge of deciding what belongs on Facebook is Mark Zuckerberg and not Joe Biden—and no amount of handwringing about addictive platforms or monopolistic practices can disguise the fact that the site is losing popularity with young people, and increasingly looks like a dying star.

NEXT: Your Cell Phone Is Spying on You

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. if anyone is an alien walking amongst us it is the dude in that photo

    1. Not an alien, a cyborg.

      1. I'd believe cyborg but it's such a fucking loser dork. cyborgs are presumably cool.

        1. His head is the perfect shape to fit on a punching bag.

          1. Love Chuck. Not hate.

            1. I make 85 dollars each hour for working an online job at home. I never thought I could do it but my best friend makes 10000 bucks every month working this job and she recommended me to learn more about it. The potential with this is endless.

              For more detail …. Visit Here

              1. You make an interesting point, but how do you feel about Facebook?

                1. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FKh And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

                  Try it, you won’t regret it........VISIT HERE

                  1. Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $3850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.TCo You don’t need to invest anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..

                    Go Here.............CASH APP

        2. He was in the same Talented and Gifted class as Lady Gaga.
          Which is probably the best argument I've heard for ending Talented and Gifted classes. (Not that I've heard any good ones.)

    2. So this where Screech from Saved By The Bell ended up.

      1. He had a 12" wang, but he dead now.

        1. A 12" Wang? That's pretty small for a mainframe computer!

      2. Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $1850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.FYj You don’t need to invest anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..

        Go Here................ Pays 24

    3. Lizard eyes.

    4. Nah. Elon Musk is the alien.

      1. He's stranded here, and he's building rocket stuff to get back home. That explains everything!

    5. I can quit FB. I can't quit the Biden that $420 million Zukerbucks bought. Guiotine!

  2. I don't hate or fear Mark Zuckerberg, but you gotta admit it's creepy as fuck to watch him go after a dish of fat juicy crickets or meal worms when it's feeding time.

  3. Zuckerberg feared Facebook's conservative users, so they received special treatment
    While many publishers suffered, Ben Shapiro and other conservative outlets flourished on Facebook.

    Facebook has long shown its preference for right-wing content, but a new report has made it clearer than ever.

    On Sunday, BuzzFeed News published a piece featuring comments from former policy employees at Facebook. In it, they detailed how Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg would often personally get involved with policy decisions involving prominent conservative pundits and publishers. The Facebook head would overrule previously established policy in order to specifically land on more lenient outcomes for those right wing personalities.

    https://mashable.com/article/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-conservative-pages

    1. Yeah, we get it. Your new narrative Zuckerberg is that the guy who spent 500 million buying the last election for Joe Biden is magically a right-wing tool.

      That's going to be an easy sell to millions of people who have had their posts deleted or accounts temporarily locked for questioning vaccine mandates and the election.

      It might seem to some that when Buttplug and Mashable try and peddle this shit, that they have memories as long as goldfish. But that's not actually what they're doing. They're gaslighting of course, but they are also demonstrating that they can spout whatever nonsense that they want, without repercussion. It's a show of power.

      1. Does anyone still doubt that Shrike is a fifty-center by the way?

        1. I don’t think anyone except Dee doubts that.

        2. Shreek has been here a long time.
          Its posts are just as bad as when it started.
          It would be really sad if its quality of posts were getting a penny.

      2. "...the guy who spent 500 million buying the last election for Joe Biden..."

        Mamma is projecting again! If Stalin spent $500 million, She would vote for Stalin! If all of the "cool kids" on FacePoooo said they were for Idi Amin, Mamma would vote for Idi Amin!

        Hey Mamma! Has it EVER occurred to You... If $500 million or all of the "cool kids" on FacePoooo can persuade us ALL of jack diddly squat (just like You apparently, telling by Your Projection), that we do NOT already favor, then... Take a clue now! Democracy is toast already anyway! Um... Maybe more of us should think for ourselves? Ya think, maybe? THAT might fix it?

        But MeThinks You are projecting, and VASTLY exaggerating this "problem"... WHAT is Your Agenda for doing so?

          1. So... Mamma did Her VERY best to get ALL of Her American friends and fiends to vote for Biden... 'Cause Zuckerberg SPENT SOME MONEY?!?!? Zuckerberg's EVIL money sucked away ALL of the free will that Mamma could muster? Taking ALL of Zuck's money and giving it to Mamma will FIX it ALL for us, right, Mamma?

            1. Yeah, that didn't make a lick of sense.
              You didn't realize Zuck had paid that much, did you, and now you're floundering.

              1. It is HIS fucking money, Marxist-communist bitch!

                Lusts-after-your-web-sites Marxist “Christian Theological Expert” MammaryBahnFuhrer thinks that one of the Ten Commandments read as follows:

                Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. Unless thy neighbor art a corporatist in Thine Righteous Eyes, in which case, Thou shalt steal ALL of their stuff & shit, howsoever Thy Power-Hungry Right-Wing Wrong-Nut Marxist Heart may desire.

                1. And there's the complete 180.

                  1. Isn't it amazing, and he thinks we don't notice.

                  2. Citation please, on when did I ever favor Marxism, or using taxes to punish people (like Zuck) that we don't like? Or NOT allowing people to spend their money as they please, favoring one candidate or another?

          2. The "former federal election official" is himself an RNC operative. Didn't you know that?

            Hans von Spakovsky was appointed to the FEC by recess appointment (because he would never have been approved by the Senate) in 2006 and hasn't been in the government for over 15 years.

            1. Doesn't really matter if he was Trump himself. The fact of the matter is that Zuckerberg did that, doesn't hide it and freely states he did.

              1. I see. So RNC operatives making wild claims don't seem to bother you.

                1. Did Zuckerberg spend $500 million fortifying the election Jeff? He says yes. So does the New York Times and the Atlantic who praised him for it. Are they making "wild claims" too?

                  You're not going to earn your fifty-cents if you don't do a little research before settling on a narrative.

                  1. Hey the nyt maintains that no reasonable person would conciders them news

                2. This is the kind of shitweasel behavior that makes us all hate you. You’re such a disingenuous piece of shit. You could have just admitted your error and your stupidity. Then begged for forgiveness. Instead you double down because you’re a lying leftist.

            2. 'Hasn’t been in the government for over 15 years,' this only matters if there is a presumption that there is viable experience gained with time spent in a job. This is not necessarily the case, as is true of most mediocre people, i.e. career politicians, career administrators, career bureaucrats. These types typically put in minimal effort and only learn, gain enough experience to perform the tasks they absolutely must.

          3. Sqrlsy, my friend. You need to work on your satire. This doesn't make you sound witty or funny. It makes you sound insane. When you're good, you're good, but you need to work on consistency.

            Don't forget. The key to good writing is editing. If you cut out 9 out of your 10 comments and only publish the best, you'd be a pretty good wit, instead of one of the most-muted people on this forum.

    2. Yeah, conservatives hate Facebook because they put the kibosh on legitimate news stories that might have hurt Biden, and liberals hate Facebook because they didn't ban Trump or his supporters soon enough or hard enough.

      What's wrong with letting left and right discuss facts and ideas and theories and solutions openly, and debate which ones are the best ideas? Why the rush to suppress ideas some disagree with? A lot of leftists seem to be worried that open discussion is a threat to democracy, when suppression of free speech is the biggest threat.

      1. Geez I sound like the Moderation4Ever sock now.

        1. There are worse people to sound like

      2. "...when suppression of free speech is the biggest threat."

        Free speech is fine and dandy. But no one should have the "freedom" to FORCE me to listen!

        Elements of both the right and the left understand this quite well, if only in a lop-sided manner, but always favoring THEIR side! To include "Parler"... https://happymag.tv/parler-free-speech-social-media-banning-users/

        Parler: new conservative ‘free speech’ social media app is banning liberal users

        Free speech for me, but not for thee! Nothing new to see HERE!

        (And I do NOT think that this is a "problem" needing to be solved by Government Almighty!)

      3. "What’s wrong with letting left and right discuss facts and ideas and theories and solutions openly, and debate which ones are the best ideas?"

        This is one of the few issues where I'll say there's no difference between most Republicans and Democrats. They don't like open discussion because each group has viewpoints or facts that the other considers misleading. The anti-speech argument typically goes like this:

        1. People are more likely to believe the first information they hear
        2. It's easier to dress up fiction in an online space
        3. Most people who hear the 'disinformation' will not see corrections

        It's the same reason some countries criminalize Holocaust denial. It's so true we'll send you to jail for denying it. The laws are well intentioned and I appreciate the support from Germany, but it's very easy to prove the Holocaust and the idiots dumb enough to deny it aren't going to be convinced regardless, so leave them be.

        Fundamentally, this issue is about as libertarian as it can get. It's all about control. The pols just want the people to hear their BS first. I sympathize with the frustration, but that's where my sympathy ends. Democrats today are pushing Marxist economic theories and my reaction is "do I seriously have to waste my time explaining this crap again?" Marxist theory is the economic equivalent of flat earth, but I would rather have to counter it with facts than live in a society where nobody can dissent.

        1. Kudos awildseaking! Agreed, and well stated!

        2. Damn it, you lit the Misek signal.

  4. What's popular on Facebook? Extreme far right political views and lies, study says

    Sources of news and information on the far right generate the highest average number of interactions per follower, more than any other partisan group on Facebook, even extreme views on the political left, NYU’s Cybersecurity for Democracy project reported.

    "We found that politically extreme sources tend to generate more interactions from users. In particular, content from sources rated as far-right by independent news rating services consistently received the highest engagement per follower of any partisan group," the study said.

    Far-right sources of news and information that spread misinformation have even higher engagement than far-right sources overall, generating on average 65% more engagement per follower, according to the study.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/03/03/facebook-extreme-far-right-politics-lies-popular/6895670002/

    As a capitalist, I say if Facebook wants to become the equivalent of wingnut AM radio and spew lies 24/7 then more power to them.

    The fault lies in those who promote Facebook as something more than a public cesspool for rumors.

    1. Because when you get your post deleted for questioning the last election, the one that Zuckerberg sank $500 million into for Team (D), it's obviously part of a right wing plot.

      Nobody believes these stories, Shrike. I know this is the new narrative to give your team the power to regulate the internet, but it's way too nonsensical.

      1. I oppose internet content regulation, you liar.

        If I say "I support Position A" you will claim I really oppose Position A and I am working against my stated position.

        You're lying has really gotten old. Unlike some of the idiots here you are capable of honest debate. Yet you won't do it.

        1. Do you always argue with yourself?

        2. turd lies. It's all turd does.
          turd is a pathological liar, too fucking stupid to even know he's lying and certainly not aware that everyone else does.
          If turd posts something which is not dishonest, it's purely accidental.
          turd lies; it's what he does.

        3. "Yet you won’t do it."

          You're the guy pushing obvious DNC agitprop claiming that the guy who's banning millions for questioning Biden's legitimacy and covid regulations and who gave $500 million to help the Democrats, is a Republican sympathizer.
          And yet you claim to be searching for honest debate? Who are you kidding?

          1. You're just another paranoid populist.

            Power to the people because the conspiracies are real.

            That is about the depth of your analysis.

            1. Where's the conspiracy, chemleft? Nobody anywhere is contesting that Zuckerberg spent $500 million on the election. Not Zuckerberg, not the Democrats, not his PAC.

              1. The conspiracy here, is that you think the money was spent specifically to help Democrats get elected, as opposed to help state boards of elections conduct an election fairly.

                1. chemtard radical deathfat simping for his lefty boos again.

                2. "as opposed to help state boards of elections conduct an election fairly."

                  Please.

                  Jeff, this is craven, even for you. Why are you here? With statements like that, it certainly isn't anything but running cover for the Tribe you obviously want in charge.

                  If you are going to argue that "fairness" means pouring millions of dollars into very specific battleground states, and only into the precincts that have high Dem representation, then you are shilling.

                  1. Jeff has ceased to amaze me with his ridiculousness.

                    I’m sure he’ll come back here later and accuse you of being a right-wing nutter or something.

                  2. Jeff, why don't you just make the argument "hate the game, not the player" or "we all want our side to win" or something. Such a nonsensical argument is disingenuous to the point that it will turn off even your supporters.

                3. Oh for fuck sake. Who do you think you're kidding.

                  https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
                  Zuckerberg and the Democrats don't even claim that.
                  That's so pathetic, Jeff.

    2. This is fantastic stuff. Everyone should read this study.

      It is an excellent example of how to not do science. They fail on every major front.

      When you set out to demonstrate something with zero prior plausibility, the methodological errors are much more glaring.

    3. Maybe because all the other social media companies ban right wing talk a lot more severely?

  5. Jen Psaki without a wig. Try to unsee that. I dare you.

    1. Oh man...

  6. They're upset that the person in charge of deciding what belongs on Facebook is Mark Zuckerberg and not Joe Biden

    Well I don't know about that. I think it is more like they are upset that "more isn't being done" to take down so-called disinformation or 'hate speech' or what-have-you. I don't think they want to put Joe Biden in charge either (the same media outlets got justifiably upset when Obama was using the Espionage Act against them), just that they think the information that's out there should be more fact-based. And that is a laudable goal. But there is no realistic way to enforce that short of a police state. The real problem with our whole discourse is education. There is not enough critical thinking and media literacy taught in our schools and so too many people are susceptible to whatever garbage meme comes along in their Facebook feed that affirms their pre-existing biases.

    1. The real problem with our whole discourse is education. There is not enough critical thinking and media literacy taught in our schools and so too many people are susceptible to whatever garbage meme comes along in their Facebook feed that affirms their pre-existing biases.

      You mean like the bias that if everyone just had the “right” education and “media literacy” society would be a-okay?

      1. If people had better education and better media literacy skills, society would be improved, not necessarily "a-okay". Is this a statement you disagree with?

        1. What exactly do you mean when you use the term 'better education' and 'better media literacy skills'? Those are very general terms.

          1. What do you think they mean? Better means "better". I don't have a 19-point detailed plan. I mean the general term, "better". Unless you think the status quo represents the apogee of perfection, there is room for improvement, no? The point is, if people had better critical thinking skills, they would be less likely to fall for obvious bullshit presented in the media. How is this in any way a controversial opinion?

            1. This I agree with:

              if people had better critical thinking skills, they would be less likely to fall for obvious bullshit presented in the media

        2. "Better" for chemleft is CRT and postmodern theory. Not history, literature, science, math, biology and chemistry.

          1. Better means "better". However you choose to define it.

            1. So you don't deny that's exactly what you meant.

              1. I meant "better". What do you think "better" means?

                1. Anything that's the polar opposite of what you support.

                2. Not CRT and postmodern theory, that's for sure. Now quit dodging the question and answer us.

                3. It doesn't matter what we or any rational person means by better. At this stage in public discourse we need to know what the speaker means. There has emerged a gap between what certain groups take certain words to mean - like man, woman, marriage, fair election, unbiased news media, etc. and what WAS the common understanding.

        3. You mean indoctrinated jeff. Thats why you used vague terms. You have also stated teachers should choose what is taught in schools despite them being some of the least educated professionals with low entry scores and gpas. So education isn't your actual concern, politics are.

          1. No, it is Team Red that means "indoctrinated". Such as this example:

            https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2021/10/05/katy-isd-pulls-books-cancels-authors-visit-after-parents-petition-claiming-subject-matter-teaches-critical-race-theory/

            Katy Independent School District said they have “temporarily” removed books by an award-winning children’s author from their library shelves after an outcry from parents claiming the subject matter promotes critical race theory.

            Jerry Craft is the writer and illustrator of “New Kid” and its sequel “Class Act”.

            He is the winner of the 2020 Newberry Medal, the Coretta Scott King Author Award, and the Kirkus Prize.

            Craft’s website describes the books, which feature young Black boys, as an “honest graphic novel about starting over at a new school where diversity is low and the struggle to fit in is real” and as a laugh-out-loud funny, powerful and important story about being one of the few kids of color in a prestigious private school”.

            ...

            A flyer sent out at the start of the school year touted Craft’s Oct. 4 virtual visit with 3rd through 5th graders at Roosevelt Alexander Elementary school.

            An amended flyer sent to parents Friday said parents and guardians could opt their students out of the visit.

            A district spokeswoman told KPRC 2 as of Monday, 30 parents had opted out.

            But that option came just as a now-deleted petition on Change.org began circulating calling on the district to cancel the virtual visit and ban the books.

            “It is inappropriate instructional material,” said parent Bonnie Anderson, a former candidate for Katy ISD school board and a party in a lawsuit against the district’s mask mandate.

            Anderson says the petition garnered 500 signatures before she says it was taken down for violating the Change.org community guidelines.

            “They are pointed at white children displaying microaggressions to children of color. The books don’t come out and say, ‘we want white children to feel like oppressors’, but that is absolutely what they will do,” Anderson said.

            This episode has nothing to do with "teaching CRT as fact". It was a completely OPTIONAL book author visit to a classroom. But even that was too much. The parents got the books banned from the school library. The books had nothing to do with CRT. It was the paranoid fear from these reactionary parents who don't want to hear anything about the struggles that students of color might feel in fitting in with a different neighborhood. They want schools to teach THEIR NARRATIVE, which is: Any problems that people of color have, it is their burden to carry. White people are not to blame, they are not even to be bothered, and they will not tolerate anything else. Any suggestion to the contrary is OMG CRITICAL RACE THEORY and will be banned. That is the indoctrination that you want in schools.

            1. You know that CRT doesn't have one iota of difference with the basis of scientific racism, but look at you pretend it's just another academic theory rather than public-subsidized hatemongering.

              1. The lady in the article even says that she doesn't even know what the book is about or that if it teaches CRT, yet she is convinced that it means "we want white children to feel like oppressors". This is a witch-hunt, and the "witches" in this case are people who think that white people have anything to do whatsoever with any racial gap in this country. If black kids can't fit in at a predominately white school, then it's the black kids' fault. Period end of story. That is the lesson that is being taught here by this protest. Do you agree?

                1. This is a witch-hunt, and the “witches” in this case are people who think that white people have anything to do whatsoever with any racial gap in this country.

                  It's telling how chemfat persistently stands up for cultural Marxist indoctrination in schools. Remember that this fat sack of shit thinks parents should shut up and defer to teachers in all things like the good little lefty simp that he is.

                  Now that it's coming out that the Louden County school board lied about knowing that two girls were raped by a tranny (or at least a guy pretending to be a girl so he could prey on other teenage girls), he's desperately trying to deflect by claiming "witch hunts" specifically because his lefty boos are the ones being resisted.

                2. You're lying again and purposefully and deliberately lying as to what CRT is about.

                  It's not just about addressing racial gaps. It's racial hatemongering pure and simple... And you know that, but you're a liar.

                  1. CRT is not a children's book about a black kid's experiences. A children's book about a black kid's experiences does not teach 'all white kids are bad and are guilty of systemic racism'.

                    If we ban all children's books written by black people, or sympathetic to black people that's not protecting our kids from 'CRT'. Instead it's censoring content that might make white parents have to explain to their kids that racism happened in the past and still happens at present. Why can't white parents deal with it? All they have to say is that their family is not racist and that they think racism is bad.

                    1. No one is buying this bullshit, Lester. Cultural Marxism, of which CRT is a branch, is anti-white, anti-capitalist propaganda, full-stop.

                      Instead it's censoring content that might make white parents have to explain to their kids that racism happened in the past and still happens at present. Why can't white parents deal with it?

                      Here's the standard lie that leftists advance when their ideology comes under attack--"Oh, you just don't want kids to know about racism!" No, we don't want white kids to be filled with self-loathing because some people did stuff in the past.

          2. You have also stated teachers should choose what is taught in schools

            OMG quelle horreur! Yes I want teachers to teach! I also want doctors to practice medicine, I want plumbers to practice plumbing, and I want lawyers to practice law! What do you want teachers to do?

            despite them being some of the least educated professionals with low entry scores and gpas.

            Oh there you go, smearing them all because some got low GPAs you think they are Democrat operatives. Let's be honest here. Your average Trump rally attendee didn't exactly graduate from Harvard and yet I don't hear you say anything about "low GPAs".

            1. Yes I want teachers to teach! I also want doctors to practice medicine, I want plumbers to practice plumbing, and I want lawyers to practice law! What do you want teachers to do?

              LOL, you said you wanted parents to shut up and defer to teachers on school curriculums.

              You must live in northern Virginia, because this is exactly what McAuliffe thinks, too. No wonder you guys are on the same side.

              Your average Trump rally attendee didn’t exactly graduate from Harvard and yet I don’t hear you say anything about “low GPAs”.

              That average Trump rally attendee has more redeeming social value than you or your lefty neighbors ever will, fat boy.

        4. Is this a statement you disagree with?

          I tried to have a discussion about this with you previously, but you don't seem to agree that it is propaganda for teachers to teach their opinions. It is almost like you are being disingenuous.

          1. Jeff being a disingenuous douche canoe? Say it ain’t so!

    2. I would posit that a police state would result in the least fact-based possibility. Propaganda anyone? But then I'm not a Statist so I may be biased. BTW, governments on the federal, state and local levels determine how our schools work so there's that. Perhaps MORE Other People's Money (OPM) would help.

  7. People who think the real problem in this country is Facebook are pathetic.

    1. Brian, kudos, good job!

      If I may... I think brain-dead tribalism is a MUCH bigger problem! Whatever "Team D" says, "Team R" will oppose it, and vice versa!

      FacePooooo is a SYMPTOM, not the disease!

      Stealing a tad now from Brandybuck, who had a good summary the other day...

      Biden… Bike helmets will be mandated!
      Abbott… Bike helmets will be strictly prohibited for all!

      Biden… Seat belts will be mandated!
      Abbott… Seat belts will be strictly prohibited for all!

      Biden… Sneeze guards at salad bars will be mandated!
      Abbott… Sneeze guards at salad bars will be strictly prohibited for all! (‘Cause the science is still being debated).

      Stupid tribalistic “R” v/s “D” morons that many of us are, we promptly pick a side! Hey… Can I as an INDIVIDUAL please choose? Including which businesses, which follow which hiring and firing policies, I shall frequent?

      But NOOOOO… The tribalistic ones keep on cheering on the perpetual growth of Government Almighty, which dangles the carrots of lust for tribalistic power in front of our stupid donkey noses, so that we’ll pull their carts to Statist Heaven some more!

      1. Huh. Can you not see that presenting a false argument (all of your "will be strictly prohibited" claims lack any relationship to "truth", or even "truthiness".) does NOT win people over?

        Also, salad bars round these here red state parts have had sneeze guards since the Wild West days.

        1. https://www.businessinsider.com/conservative-radio-hosts-anti-maskers-death-covid-19-2021-9
          At least 7 conservative radio hosts and anti-mask advocates have died from COVID-19 after bashing the vaccines
          Intergalactic or Cosmic-Karmic ironic coincidence, maybe? Or candidates for Darwin Awards?

          BTW, I am STILL waiting for “the science” concerning sneeze guards at the salad bars, to be settled! Meanwhile, “R” party governors are FORBIDDING sneeze guards at the salad bars!!!
          Who volunteers to eat what MAY be mucus from strangers, on their salads, in double-blind, MASSIVELY statistically significant studies, to settle this, for once and for all? Because I just KNOW, oh so VERY well, that once the “science” is settled, there will be NO tribalistic ideologues who will dispute these findings! We are ALL data-driven now!

          In more seriousness, my wife and I live in Texas, and she faces bone marrow transplants soon. They will take down her immune system for that. Governor Abbot has just decided that HE knows BETTER than doctors and hospitals, and so He FORBIDS the hospital from firing cootie-bags of un-vaccinated doctors and nurses who reject vaccines and "germ theories" of disease! We may NOT chose a hospital where medical barbarians and savages are EXCLUDED! 'Cause HE knows better than we, and our doctors, do!

          THEY, businesses, and NOT the government, should be making the decisions! So we don’t have firm “science” about masks? No VAST databases and double-blind studies? Well, we’ve not done that with sneeze-guards at the salad bar either! I would LIKE to be able to freely choose to eat at salad bars with sneeze-guards, and not have the Governor double-guessing on me, and minding my business! If OTHER people want to eat at salad bars WITHOUT sneeze guards, they, too, should be free!

          What gets “lost in the sauce” here is people (who are IDEOLOGICALLY motivated) want to “debate the science” about vaccines and masks, and mandates, and what they REALLY want to do, is “capture” government policies… NOT really giving us individual FREEDOM. And Trumps, and Governors, and Emperor-Wannabees tap into that , and make slaves out of us, using our own power-hungers!

          I want to choose salad bars with sneeze guards, and hospitals with vaccinated staffs, for my wife, while her immune system is down. Others should be free to choose otherwise. But what I see all around me, is people GROWING Government Almighty, under the illusion that THEY, not others, will be The Chosen Pussy Grabbers!

          (And I really don’t care how many studies have found what, about sneeze guards at the salad bars. I don’t want too much mucus from strangers, on my salad, is all).

        2. Plus, anyone who has lived in Texas would know there are no salad bars in Texas. Golden Corral for the win.

          1. I can speak to the contrary. Even Golden Corral has a salad bar.

      2. Except that's not true at all.
        Abbott would let you wear a bike helmet if you want.
        Biden would give you no choice but to wear one, or lose your job.

        1. It's only a slight exaggeration.

          My wife and I live in Texas, and she faces bone marrow transplants soon. They will take down her immune system for that. Governor Abbot has just decided that HE knows BETTER than doctors and hospitals, and so He FORBIDS the hospital from firing cootie-bags of un-vaccinated doctors and nurses who reject vaccines and “germ theories” of disease! We may NOT chose a hospital where medical barbarians and savages are EXCLUDED! ‘Cause HE knows better than we, and our doctors, do!

          And THAT is actual TRUTH, including my wife and the bone marrow transplant!

          1. Hope all goes well for her SQRLSY.

            1. Thanks for you good wishes, Echospinner!

            2. Hope you die of cancer Echospinner, you Nazi piece of shit.

          2. My wife and I live in Texas

            Your wife left you and took your children with her years ago, sarcasmic. Remember how you spent months drunk-posting about it like the self-pitying whining piece of shit you are? Oh that's right, I forgot we're all supposed to pretend you haven't outed this sock at least a dozen fucking times because you can't keep your logins straight when you're drunk off your ass at 9 in the morning.

            In any case, your "wife" is perfectly free to screen her surgeon and his staff for vaccine status. There is nothing in the Texas law that prevents a physician or medical staffer from obtaining the vaccine. What you don't get to do is dictate that every person who works for a medical facility has to get a dangerous vaccine that has resulted in 16,000 deaths and over a million adverse reactions or lose their job. See how that works, you fascist cunt? They have the freedom to tell you to stuff your idiotic talismans up your retarded boomer asshole sideways, and you have the freedom to go shop around for a death cultists that believes that same idiotic shit that you do. It's also pretty funny you invoke germ theory to describe a virus. You should see if you can get a fully-vaccinate physician to explain to you what a germ actually is you retarded sack of shit.

            By the way, I hope you die an extremely painful death full of unimaginable suffering and are denied medication or relief by the very same medical fascists whose cocks you can't keep out of your mouth. Sincerely. Stomach cancer would be ideal, although ALS would also be great. Die slow.

  8. Any corporate actor that prioritizes safety over business deserves neither.

    1. Depends on how one defines "safety". I don't think the WaPo is using the word here like the rest of us do. Like if their product murdered every one who produced it and used it that would be a safety concern. Obviously that's not the case. WaPo is using the term in some nebulous way meant to scare people that the nation is in some great undefined danger and the federal government needs to "do something" about it. In reality, it's meant to scare people that their safe spaces might be compromised...and the federal government needs to "do something" about it.

  9. I dunno. Isn't "stomp 'em when they weaken" right out of the lefty playbook? They see FB falter, (*BAM!*).
    Death to the weak, amirite?

  10. So... Democratic Senators requesting that the sitting president and vast majorities of the presidents fan-base be shut-down, censored, deleted and darkened is a big fat nothing-burger????

    Let's start with the question does that really put Zuckerberg in charge when Senators demand and Zuckerberg jumps?.

    And whats-up with using Josh Hawley accusing Zuckerberg of being a Gov-Whore and twisting it into doing bidding of the US Senate? That doesn't even make sense.

    Yes; Both Facebook and Amazon have proven themselves to be Gov-Whore's of lefty Senators; calling them out on that by a Senator isn't "doing the bidding of...."

    Frankly it baffles me that those Congressmen that made those requests aren't up on treasonous charges all the while they project their own acts of treason onto Trump as being treasonous for calling B.S. on an election so massively fraud-ed only 30% partisan hack residents *pretend* not to notice.

  11. Are you daft?

    Dude spent the better part of a half A billion to set up democrat Party activist control over local election boards. You know, to "fortify" the election.

    Dude's company has been actively censoring conservatives for at least a decade.

    They were leaders in the "deplatform" movement.

    But sure... Facebook has to work to stay relevant with young people. So don't worry about any of that.....

    1. Conservatives do very well on Facebook.

      See:

      https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

      Conservative authors are consistently on the top 10.

      It is just a lie to claim that "conservatives" are censored on Facebook.

      1. Right up till they get some attention from Nazi-Politicians.

    2. So? If the money was legally spent then it is his money to do with as he wishes. If the company wants to be the Mother Jones of the internets they can do that as well.

      My only regret is that I didn’t buy stock in them 5 years ago and revenues are up again despite all the fuss.

      All the cool kids are doing Twitter and Instagram now anyway I hear.

      1. If the money was legally spent

        It wasn't. There are state laws prohibiting the purchase of election officials in all 50 states of the union. The thing is, if you launder the cash through 3 proxy organizations and then pull your stunt in states controlled by Democrats for whom you are campaigning, you face no repercussions for it.

        Go back to sucking sarcasmic's whiskey-dick, you're a lot better at that than trying to cogitate.

  12. Struggling to attract the young while your great aunt post cat photos, such is the fate of any business dependent on being cool and young to survive.

    That it's attained any level of power is what makes it a target of the politicians. Not because they want to limit that power but rather because they want it for themselves.

    1. Yeah the In-Q-Tel-backed scrappy little startup called Facebook is just totally persecuted by that big, mean gubmint.

  13. A dozen+ major news organizations receive access to "trove of internal company documents." Most (some in coordination) publish articles based on different parts the new info.

    Minor media organization (unidentified but with a title implying rationality) writes lead story stating—without the documents—that there's nothing in the documents that should interest anyone ("Nothingburger" is the term used in the headline), so no one should bother reading all those stories.

    Did I get that right?

      1. Well, actually yes, but luckily you're a stupid, lying, Koch-sucking piece of shit.

        Hope your kids get raped by shreek and you die of cancer.

  14. Company founded to facilitate open discussion chooses making money over squelching open discussion.

    Highly compensated employees hardest hit.

    1. Company founded to facilitate open discussion

      This post is about Facebook. Facebook was not founded to facilitate open discussion. It was founded to rate women on college campuses based on their looks. Then it was capitalized by the CIA's venture capital arm to become a surveillance apparatus of the state.

      Hope that helps, you lying piece of shit.

  15. Nice Blog, keep it up for more information like this.

  16. "The mainstream media's fear of Mark Zuckerberg is not supported by the documents"

    The fear of the less fortunate is supported by having seen what this dweeb got up to as an undergraduate idea thief.

    Truly, he is the Kwisatz Haderach of the road to universal assholedom.

    1. Most filthy rich people are assholes.

      1. Most people in general are assholes. I love em anyway.

      2. Lol, are you still pretending to be a highly rated surgeon making ~$500k a year there, Spartacus?

  17. Really helpful Information...!!!
    I'm a regular reader of reason.com . Thanks for sharing valid information and news. Thanks

  18. Seems like Soave is interviewing for a higher paying job at Facebook.

    1. Waterboy gotta show he can carry that load.

    2. Stipendium pecavi mors est

  19. Two charities that I have supported at various times in my life are the ACLU and Doctors Without Borders. Only one of them still gets checks from me.

    While the ACLU's descent into illiberalism became clear 20 years ago (and I stopped supporting them), Doctors Without Borders goes so far as to refuse to provide services in regions where they can not assure that your donation will be used to actually, you know, benefit people instead of being somehow appropriated by local thugs.

    Facebook could take a lesson from that, and yes -- pull out of nations where the government demands censorship. After all, acceding to such demands is functionally equivalent to supporting oppression. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for Facebook to show a shred of ethical backbone.

  20. I don't except about this are you agree?

  21. I still don't see the obsession the MSM has with the idea that people get all their news from Facebook. I'm not buying it. They rarely differentiate between the news that Facebook algorithms feed you and the news your stupid uncle posts. And what kind of moron only gets their news from Facebook? Maybe the solution is not censorship but education? Actively promote that people get their news from diverse sources instead of making Zuckerberg out to be more important than he really is.

    1. The problem with your plan is these people are so dumb they think that they can't possibly get better news. Nor will they get the same "rush" of being right if they see news that at all challenges their views.

      It's the best way honestly to get news- via an RSS feed or something with multiple distinct sources encompassing a lot of viewpoints but people won't bother.

      1. Remember the good old days before social media when you blamed AM radio and cable news for all your ills, shreek?

        Why don't you go back to Democratic Underground and have an intelligent, well-rounded discussion about it you child-fucking piece of shit.

  22. Good article Robby.

  23. "And what kind of moron only gets their news from Facebook? "

    The new model moron— the kind that evolved out of facebook addiction.

  24. So Reason then is fine with censorship? Facebook should capitulate to foreign governments now? Just trying to figure out which view Reason staff is taking today.

    And to be fair- while Zuckerberg is a despicable piece of human garbage, the more illuminating thing was the information on accounts and what counted as a SAMU - single user, multiple accounts. If the numbers were true then facebook is deceiving investors with growth that isn't really growth- ie. reaching more eyeballs. That should be more concerning with anyone investing in facebook.

    1. So Reason then is fine with censorship?

      Yes, shreek. You've posted your full-throated agreement with their pro-censorship and fascist policy proposals thousands of times over multiple years, you should know.

  25. This "whistle-blower" is much the same as the "sue and settle" agreements between the EPA and environmental groups. It's all pretend so that both parties can get what they want. And, what they want is facebook to have more control over what people post on their site without any repercussions. For instance, BLM can use facebook to organize their riots, but the right can't use facebook for their legal protests (violation of community standards since facebook disagrees with the message).

    They are using the "think about the children" narrative they always use. The thing is, what they want is to quieten the voices that disagree with the government narrative while giving a megaphone to those that agree with government officials.

    It would be fine if their rules were uniform, but they are not. It all depends on the message as to what they allow.

  26. Maybe Robbie didn’t read the Wall Street Journal articles. Zuck is caught lying to Congress, Facebook was enabling Sex Trafficking in Eastern Europe (until Apple threatened to pull all Facebook apps from the App Store), Facebook continues to facilitate recruitment for Mexican Cartels, and there is so much Muslim hate put on the site by the ruling party of India that it has incited several riots. That is just a sample.

  27. Former Facebook employee and activist Frances Haugen is not a whistleblower.

  28. I dislike Facebook in many fibers of my being and do resent the of companies that have allowed their websites to be partly captured by their tentacles, often going out of my way to keep from using the most practical way to sign into websites. There seems to be some legitimate amount of antitrust concern, given its structure and reach. But that is a technical legal question.
    But the current narrative of "evil" Facebook whose corporate (or personal in the case of Zuckerberg) soul is blackened by every sin of its users seems less than believable when coming from a media whose finances has been put into jeopardy by its very existence.
    The entire model for Facebook was once one driven by users which include advertisers (who pay for it) and individuals who consume it. This model is entirely accepted by virtually all sentient users and very closely models (but is superior to) that used by other media. But in order to survive within today's environment (and to some extent to be good corporate citizens) Facebook has had to toe a line that sometimes tips over into self-censorship. And yet, they still are subject to castigation for the fact that "some" 14-year-old girls end up, through proprietary software, "being led to" sites promoting anorexia. Of course, this software could involve the individual searching for such sites. Having raised kids through this perilous age, I believe that a given young female American teen may be psychologically devastated by a 15 minute trip through the local mall.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.