Facebook is currently down but
that doesn't mean that we should go
easy on them.
Because they are currently facing
all whole bundle of different
scandals, we've talked about a few
in recent weeks.
The internal studies showing that
they understand the mental health
impact, the negative mental health
impact that they have on especially
young girls using their services.
The ways that they've helped boost
sources of misinformation provided
some high profile right wingers
with protection from their
own terms of service being invoked
against them.
But there's a new big one too, and
it's coming from a whistleblower.
This is whistleblower
Frances Haugen, who has revealed
how they not only helped provide
a platform on Facebook for the
insurrectionists to plan January 6,
but also effectively disarmed after
they felt they had done enough
right before the insurrection.
So in addition to some other
things, we're going to go
through that right now.
Now Frances Haugen had been
a product manager, who had worked
at Facebook since 2019.
Recently provided leaked internal
Facebook documents and reports to
the Wall Street Journal and
Congress in recent weeks after
resigning back in April.
Before departing the company in
May, Haugen sifted through
Facebook's internal systems,
reviewing thousands of documents,
looking at how the company operated
that was back when they
actually operated.
But anyway, so
here is what Frances found in his
describing in interviews this week.
During the 2020 election,
Facebook executives believing they
had done their duty promptly
disbanded their civic integrity
team at the beginning of December,
as part of a broader
reshuffle within the company.
A month later insurrectionist
stormed the capital,
they plan the incident,
at least in part on Facebook.
She says there were conflicts of
interest between what was good for
the public and
what was good for Facebook.
And Facebook over and over,
chose to optimize for
its own interests,
making more money.
Now, bear in mind is a company that
brings in countless billions of
dollars every single year.
But they couldn't bear to have
the civic integrity unit operating
for a day longer than they felt
necessary.
And just in case you've forgotten I
want to remind you that December
of last year was not like a really
cool time from democracies
point of view.
They were what dozens of
simultaneous court
cases challenging the legitimacy of
the election.
Lynn Wood was doing
press conferences every day.
Rudy Giuliani was farting on other
people who work for Donald Trump.
They were very much still in full
court press, to stop the election
from going forward.
And that is the context under which
Facebook decided that their civic
integrity unit did not need to
function.
And that meant that this territory
which was already fertile for
things like insurrectionist
planning would allow for a more
free flow of misinformation and
radicalization of people on it.
I want to give you a brief
description of how that actually
works, and you need to understand
going into this.
The Facebook has always said that
if people get radicalized on
its products that is on them.
They went looking for
this material and it's
not on Facebook to stop them from
finding things that are out there.
But that's not actually how
it works.
So Frances Haugen says, so
they've taken brand new accounts so
no friends, and
all they've done is they follow
Donald Trump Melania Trump,
Fox News and a local news source.
And then all they did is click on
the first 10 things
that Facebook showed them,
where Facebook suggested
a group they join that group.
So they're not doing any conscious
action here.
Just one time go in.
And within a week, you see QAnon.
Within two weeks,
you see white genocide.
And so this is not searching,
there's no searching.
They only accept the things that
Facebook presents to them.
And it is clear that Facebook is
presenting QAnon,
conspiracy theories,
white supremacy and white genocide.
And why?
It's fairly obvious, this is
the stuff that people click on and
comment on and spend more
time looking at Facebook for, which
means they're exposed to more ads.
They're doing it for
the same reason that every two bit
grifter does.
It's just to make more money,
damn the costs.
So there's more but
what do you think?
>> Yeah, I've got a again,
a slightly different opinion and so
there's tons of nuance in here.
So, first though,
let me be upfront and do
what no one else in the media does.
I am biased here.
And the reason I'm biased is
because Facebook is one of our
top partners.
And by the way,
to be fair to Facebook,
and you'll see it You'll see this
video on Facebook once they're back
up here right?
But but a lot of you will literally
be viewing this video on Facebook.
So there here's a critique of
Facebook that they are putting
onto their own platform.
So credit where credit is
due on that.
Okay, so
now the main arguments here.
All they do want to do is make
money, welcome to America.
So every like this is the part that
bothers me is and
now this is a very ironic defense
is when people are outraged that
corporations just want to make
money.
That's their nature that's
literally in their bylaws.
That's their fiduciary
responsibility, that's that's
how we wrote the laws.
Now I say it's an ironic defense
because I argued that we should
change the laws.
And so you know what,
today be corpse,
maybe I should be the way to go.
We should be really careful about
the stock market because when you
have a corporation that
goes public.
It basically institutionalises
greed and bust return 15% at
a minimum, every single year.
There are systemic fixes that we
can do that.
But when we pick one company at
a time and go, can you believe
they're trying to make money and
that's all they care about?
My answer is yes,
I can definitely believe it.
That is what almost all of them
do, okay?
Some private companies,
not necessarily they have more
leeway, okay?
Public companies have almost
no leeway.
So number two, their defense is not
completely wrong when they say,
Well, this is what you guys want.
And it's true.
So here let's explain a couple
of reasons as to why it's true.
So number one, have you ever been
doing Spring Break where two guys
are agreeing and
the whole crowd gathers goes
watch these guys agree, man?
No, I haven't either, right?
But have you ever been in
a Spring Break when somebody says,
watch these two guys fight and
the whole crowd turns and
watches the fight?
>> Yeah, they all
agree that he should fight so.
>> [LAUGH] But you see
the phenomenon I'm talking about.
As soon as there's a fight, and
then I picked Spring Break as we
recently did a video about that in
Miami.
And so the minute there's even
a slight fight everybody looks it's
human nature guys,
it's human nature.
So what these comments sections
are doing are incense starting
fights, right?
This is highly engaging material
one side goes no there is no
racism and
the other side says yes there is.
And all of a sudden we got to fight
and everybody's looking okay?
And so driving engagement so that
you can stay on Facebook longer so
they can make more money.
None of that is false.
That is correct, okay?
Now we say, bad boy don't do that.
Well question is how,
how do we stop them?
>> I would say having one side
who says there is racism and
other sides that says there's none.
Maybe this doesn't substantively
change your point but
that is not the balance of what
we're talking about.
We're talking about content
designed to convince people that
their government is instituting a
genocide against them effectively.
>> But now, let's go to that
topic- >> It's that
sort of conspiritorizing.
>> No but- >> And allowing them to
organize based on this.
Convincing them that
vaccines don't work.
Or that vaccines
are actually killing them.
>> No but John, look, so there,
in a sense I disagree even more.
So why, okay, you said and I don't
think you meant it this way,
but I want to make sure that
the audience understands, that
Facebook presents that to them.
They don't.
There is no person at Facebook
that says,
now serve them white genocide.
>> No, no, I'm saying that they
are explicitly being served up.
They're not searching up these
materiel in experiments that
the whistle blower was describing-
>> Yes the algorithm.
>> It is suggested it to them-
>> The algorithm is suggesting it
to them, but what- >> That's the
the presenting I was talking about.
>> I got you, but why is that
algorithm suggesting it to them?
It's not because Facebook wants to
push QAnon or white genocide, my
guess is that they're against that,
right?
And so
the reason it does is because it
is highly engaging content,
because people when they hear about
it go yes or no and
then they fight, okay?
So by the way again another ironic
defense We're talking about white
genocide.
Fox News talks about it all
the time on air.
That's that used to be
an insane conspiracy theory that
the government was looking to do
genocide on white people by
replacing them.
By the way originally with Jews,
that was the the German version of
that now also in Charlottesville.
But now more often with immigrants
and dirty immigrants, etc.
But Tucker Carlson does that every
night on Fox News.
>> That's true.
He's caught up to the- >> Yeah,
>> The message boards >> So are we
telling Facebook that they
should ban Fox News material?
Because it is avowedly racist?
I don't know that's a good question
whether they should do that or not.
But it is definitely a so
called legitimate, so
called news operation that is
pushing that racism.
No question.
So if you want Facebook to stop it,
then you got to tell them,
they got to make the decision and
be comfortable with it, which is a
tough decision on banning Fox News.
>> Yeah the presumably legitimate
in that they have more money
than OYN.
I'm not sure about much more than
that,but.
And also Frances is the whistle
blower as far as I'm seeing is not
calling for it to be banned.
They're saying you need to
understand that publicly Facebook
is saying this is on you.
It takes two the Tango,
you need to be more responsible
when they are in fact proactively
suggesting this material.
And so none of that is prescriptive
about what should actually be done
or whether anything should be done
to change it.
But you need to understand whether
a corporation
is fundamentally lying to you.
>> But again, then when you say
presenting there, the only reason
why the algorithm suggests it it's
because of how popular it is and
how engaging it is.
So if white genocide had no
comments and it was something
terrible like, hey, there's a new
meme out that says, quadruple
homicide is homicide is awesome.
Well that would not be quote
unquote suggested by Facebook's
algorithm because nobody's in favor
of that, and
nobody's engaging that.
I know I'm worried now that hold
on, but I'm worried about
putting anything into the world
because then it starts a fight.
And next thing you know,
it's super engaging and
next thing you know,
it's promoted by everyone.
So guys,
they're looking to make money.
They're not going there and
be like, if we push to say.
Now at the same time is Zuckerberg
super friendly with the right wing?
Yes, he has Ben Shapiro and
other right wingers over for
dinner on a regular basis.
So I don't know that he's had a
single progressive over for dinner,
a single one so again >> We had one
lunch me and him >> You did?
Okay good for you [LAUGH] >> We had
breakfast burritos I just was
feeling the breakfast because at
that point >> So but honestly it's
partly because Facebook >> Leans
republican over there almost their
entire board is Republican.
Their fact checkers are Republican.
They I mean every almost
everybody in the organisation with
the exception of Sheryl Sandberg as
far as I can tell, is certainly on
economic issues are republican to
deeply Republican.
So I'm not
defending them on any of that.
So I don't see a lot of parody and
how they treat folks, right?
And so if you want to press on that
more, I think that makes sense.
By the way, a lot of times when
they go to fix these problems,
what they'll do is okay,
we're now wiping out everything
that touches the issue of race, so
you can't be in favor of racism.
But you also can't be opposed to
racism.
If you do videos saying, hey, cops
shouldn't beat up on black people,
we'll just delete the video.
We won't allow you to put them on.
Wait, that's not fair.
Doesn't it make sense to put
something good and
positive in the world to try to
create positive change?
>> Yeah, I agree. >> No, no, no.
As long as you guys tell us to stay
out of politics, We're going to
punish the racist and
the non racist equally.
That is far more likely to happen
especially given
the republican proclivities, right?
So watch out what you wish for
you just might get it.
>> I'm not wishing for
that I don't like the status quo or
their bs fixes in the past- >> And
by the way- >> But I do think
people need to understand that we
used to have a world where if
the KKK or white supremacist wanted
to radicalise you, I don't know.
I guess they left a flyer
like posted in a gun store and
you had to go to a meeting in
the woods or something.
Now your grandma logs on to
Facebook.
And right alongside, you know,
New York, The New York Times.
She's getting stuff from
WhiteEagle.com and she sees it as
equally reputable and and groups,
insurrections groups.
It used to be that like terrorist
groups and things like that.
It was difficult to
radicalize people.
Now, they're on the biggest
platform in the world.
And again, I'm not saying I know
specifically what needs to be done
if anything, but that seems like
a pretty bad status quo.
>> So, now let me talk about why
this news story and
the revelations are good news.
Okay, number one, anytime you find
out the truth is good news, okay?
It's better to know than not know.
Okay, so then we can have
an interesting dialogue as we're
doing right here as to what to do
about it.
But at least you know what
the problem is and
the context the problem, okay?
Number two, all they've ever gotten
at Facebook and
this might be a bigger reason why
they almost always lean right away
is pressure from Republicans.
>> Yep. >> Ted Cruz and all the
others Trump yelling at them 24/7.
And democrats are usually
the politicians are generally
speaking cowards.
So and so they'll say,
please give us a donation.
We will fight with you.
We're fine. We're
totally fine right?
That's generally
how democrats react.
So they think,
we can push progressives around,
we could push democrats around,
we can ignore the left wing and
it's going to have no consequences.
So now this at
least shines a spotlight on to
how right wing like the worst,
most extreme part of the right wing
has taken root at Facebook.
And it might create pressure on
them to go, hey,
maybe that's not a good thing.
Maybe we could work on fixing our
algorithm so
that it doesn't promote hatred
in any direction, right?
And be really, really thoughtful
about it because he until you
create pressure to fix it,
they won't,
because they're just going to
continue to try to do the thing
that makes them the most money.
And the third thing that I think
is positive about this is that it
brings attention to the fact that
things that you see on Facebook or
anywhere online are not necessarily
true.
[LAUGH] Okay and this apparently is
a really hard concept for people.
So we need to repeat that 1000
times and
it's again deeply ironic here.
Because we're online,
and we're telling you, be careful
about things you see online.
With us, you can always verify,
you could you could Google it,
you can search and do
an independent search on your own.
We often put the links in
the description box so you can
check and verify on your own and
we encourage you to do that.
Okay, and I wish other outlets
would do that.
But of course, they don't because
if you checked what Breitbart
wrote, you'd realize, my God,
almost none of it is true, right?
[LAUGH] You'd be like, well,
that's weird.
Why am I subscribing
a the thing that lies to me 24/7?
It's because they want the rich
to get even more money.
Well, I'm not in favor of that.
Okay, so my point is unfortunately
a gigantic percentage of people,
if they see anything on Facebook,
or something like Facebook does
just automatically believe it.
>> Yep.
>> Don't do that.
There's no they have no compunction
about I don't mean Facebook I mean
the individual sites on Facebook
that are pushing that to you.
They have there
are no rules against them lying.
There's no laws against it.
They can put up
almost anything they want.
So for God's sake, think twice
when you see something online