In a lesser-noticed but revealing portion of Frances Haugen’s stage-managed PR tour last week, the vaunted “Facebook Whistleblower” took a moment to show off her “national security” credentials for Republican Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska. After the two had finished rehearsing all the reasons why American children are at such grave risk from a dangerously unregulated internet, they pivoted to another topic — that being Haugen’s previous experience at Facebook working in what she describes as “counter-espionage” operations. Yes, you read that right: Haugen was apparently a “project manager” at something called the “threat intelligence org,” located deep in the bowels of Facebook, at which she claims to have presided over a team carrying out “counter-espionage” ops on behalf of Mark Zuckerberg.
Seems like a lot of people saw through her right away. Maybe the mainstream media is kissing her ass, but her being a shameless fake spread through the internet like wildfire. She has not had nearly the impact they were hoping for.
So glad to see you call this out. We know it's not a real whistleblower as soon as Congress and MSM give them heroic treatment. Real whistleblowers are stifled and smeared, prosecuted and jailed. John Kiriakou the only person prosecuted and jailed for CIA torture program confirmed it was US policy to torture and there's a long list who exposed criminality and were rewarded by having their lives destroyed, Congress made a fuss about CIA leaker, Eric Ciaramella another fake whistleblower, to build their Impeachment case. Now they have their fake Facebook hero to cheer for censorship. Hard to say which is worse the regularity of corp-gov fraud or the fact the public buys the lies.
What she's proposing sounds like the best thing FB could possibly hope for: a government body tasked with regulating FB and it's competitors staffed almost entirely with former (and future) FB people and other industry insiders, essentially allowing them to regulate themselves and their competition.
Is this not what FB has been seeking all along?
I'm not the type who sees conspiracies everywhere but my goodness, are we sure she's not doing this at FB's direction? What is the downside to FB in anything she's said? A bit more reputational harm and maybe a short term financial loss, but it's nothing compared to the long term benefits of getting as deeply embedded into the government as what she's proposing.
I think the extent to which an independent journalist gins up the ire of the Twitterati is a very reliable gauge of how important that journalist's work is and how well it effectively undermines their dogma, which means that you're killing it, MT.
Always remember that for every neurotic, self-involved spaz having an apoplectic fit over some truth you've written or pointed out, there are 10 people who wholeheartedly support you. They feign self-assurance with aggression. Q.v. - the random congressional staffer today, the one who looks exactly like the sort of dude who uses windows as vanity mirrors, who felt compelled to proclaim his intent to "find and bully" you.
For a while there, in the 70s and 80s, working at the Military-Industrial Complex, Langley Donut-Pounding Division, wasn't glamorous. They weren't paid so well that status-grabbing preppies glommed onto it. Well, that's changed. (In rel phenomenon, did you know that only socially awkward nerds used computers/Internet in 1994? Strange but true)
I blame the TV show "Alias" but probably has more to do with D.C./NoVa real estate market
A Karentrepeneur is a professional attention-seeker, faux-activist, and whistleblower-for-hire who develops a personal media brand by providing public narrative support for those who will directly or indirectly provide the Karentrepeneur with a boost of self-importance, a big bump in social status, and some paid gigs/deals. (See also: bottom-feeder)
It has everything to do with the the dynamics of power.
If you are "whistle blowing" in such a way so that you demand already powerful institutions should be given more power, they will roll out the red carpet.
If your whistle blowing is done, like Snowden, to expose corruption of that power?
Heavily "credentialed"...the hottest term in biz these days is "data scientist" - in other words, you look at numbers and can say, unequivocally, that 2 is larger than 1 and explain the differences between median and average. You might even be able to (begin censoring here...) that anyone under the age of 30 is more likely to die of the flu and is more likely to develop side effects from the vaccine than COVID (end censoring). Because data science with a blue check NEVER analyzes inconvenient truths nor counter the orthodoxy. Lemmings may now continue taking a long walk on a short pier.
Good article. One point on "Facebook itself" where you'll probably catch some flack - the oversight board is nominally independent of Facebook, notwithstanding arguments made by most thinking beings, such as those at the NYT: "But Facebook funds the board with a $130 million trust, and top executives played a big role in its formation."
Excellent article. Got a little suspicious when all the articles were run by WSJ (which basically said nothing new and were more opinion than factual) AND she she was featured on 60 Minutes. It was a little obvious, preachy, and too well scripted.
Watched the Senate hearings and it was obvious that it was an orchestrated event to anyone who have been paying attention and thinking critically.
However, I was amazed that the day of the event Tucker Carlson was treating her as an actual whistleblower spilling the goods on FB's equivalency to Tobacco Companies (which is a true issue). The next day he recognized that he (or maybe his producers?) missed the big picture of this charade and admitted he was really humbled. I don't always agree with Tucker, but he usually has very good insight on framing events in context, better than most of the Fox opinion folks or the other mainstream media.
"Functionary" is perfect. It's a term that deserves much wider and more frequent usage in 2021.
Seems like a lot of people saw through her right away. Maybe the mainstream media is kissing her ass, but her being a shameless fake spread through the internet like wildfire. She has not had nearly the impact they were hoping for.
Haugen is a fraud as whistleblower, and therefore not even a whistleblower. How about political hack.
Her testimony oozed of agenda, not of fact. She clearly wants to push a narrative that her view of what should be censored, is the only correct view.
I remain not impressed, in fact far from it.
She’s a fascist.
Reminds me of John Kerry.
For those who don't know about the Winter Soldier, ask yourself why it was Kerry who became the spokesman and ended up testifying before Congress.
The Oligarchy is so firmly in control that even the opposition is determined by the Oligarchy.
So glad to see you call this out. We know it's not a real whistleblower as soon as Congress and MSM give them heroic treatment. Real whistleblowers are stifled and smeared, prosecuted and jailed. John Kiriakou the only person prosecuted and jailed for CIA torture program confirmed it was US policy to torture and there's a long list who exposed criminality and were rewarded by having their lives destroyed, Congress made a fuss about CIA leaker, Eric Ciaramella another fake whistleblower, to build their Impeachment case. Now they have their fake Facebook hero to cheer for censorship. Hard to say which is worse the regularity of corp-gov fraud or the fact the public buys the lies.
I'm old enough to remember the Internet when there was no Facebook. It was nice.
What she's proposing sounds like the best thing FB could possibly hope for: a government body tasked with regulating FB and it's competitors staffed almost entirely with former (and future) FB people and other industry insiders, essentially allowing them to regulate themselves and their competition.
Is this not what FB has been seeking all along?
I'm not the type who sees conspiracies everywhere but my goodness, are we sure she's not doing this at FB's direction? What is the downside to FB in anything she's said? A bit more reputational harm and maybe a short term financial loss, but it's nothing compared to the long term benefits of getting as deeply embedded into the government as what she's proposing.
Bravo.
I think the extent to which an independent journalist gins up the ire of the Twitterati is a very reliable gauge of how important that journalist's work is and how well it effectively undermines their dogma, which means that you're killing it, MT.
Always remember that for every neurotic, self-involved spaz having an apoplectic fit over some truth you've written or pointed out, there are 10 people who wholeheartedly support you. They feign self-assurance with aggression. Q.v. - the random congressional staffer today, the one who looks exactly like the sort of dude who uses windows as vanity mirrors, who felt compelled to proclaim his intent to "find and bully" you.
For a while there, in the 70s and 80s, working at the Military-Industrial Complex, Langley Donut-Pounding Division, wasn't glamorous. They weren't paid so well that status-grabbing preppies glommed onto it. Well, that's changed. (In rel phenomenon, did you know that only socially awkward nerds used computers/Internet in 1994? Strange but true)
I blame the TV show "Alias" but probably has more to do with D.C./NoVa real estate market
A Karentrepeneur is a professional attention-seeker, faux-activist, and whistleblower-for-hire who develops a personal media brand by providing public narrative support for those who will directly or indirectly provide the Karentrepeneur with a boost of self-importance, a big bump in social status, and some paid gigs/deals. (See also: bottom-feeder)
It has everything to do with the the dynamics of power.
If you are "whistle blowing" in such a way so that you demand already powerful institutions should be given more power, they will roll out the red carpet.
If your whistle blowing is done, like Snowden, to expose corruption of that power?
Well, power doesn't like that
Heavily "credentialed"...the hottest term in biz these days is "data scientist" - in other words, you look at numbers and can say, unequivocally, that 2 is larger than 1 and explain the differences between median and average. You might even be able to (begin censoring here...) that anyone under the age of 30 is more likely to die of the flu and is more likely to develop side effects from the vaccine than COVID (end censoring). Because data science with a blue check NEVER analyzes inconvenient truths nor counter the orthodoxy. Lemmings may now continue taking a long walk on a short pier.
Good article. One point on "Facebook itself" where you'll probably catch some flack - the oversight board is nominally independent of Facebook, notwithstanding arguments made by most thinking beings, such as those at the NYT: "But Facebook funds the board with a $130 million trust, and top executives played a big role in its formation."
Excellent article. Got a little suspicious when all the articles were run by WSJ (which basically said nothing new and were more opinion than factual) AND she she was featured on 60 Minutes. It was a little obvious, preachy, and too well scripted.
Watched the Senate hearings and it was obvious that it was an orchestrated event to anyone who have been paying attention and thinking critically.
However, I was amazed that the day of the event Tucker Carlson was treating her as an actual whistleblower spilling the goods on FB's equivalency to Tobacco Companies (which is a true issue). The next day he recognized that he (or maybe his producers?) missed the big picture of this charade and admitted he was really humbled. I don't always agree with Tucker, but he usually has very good insight on framing events in context, better than most of the Fox opinion folks or the other mainstream media.