Facebook Whistleblower : Revelations of Harmful Practices

Reality check. If young girls shame themselves because of the appearance of professional models, then the solution is in parental guidance, not government. If people say they are addicted to facebook then the solution is within, not in government. It is not an appropriate role of government to get involved in the legal operation of businesses. We should want to continue to have a free market and overall freedom which has made the U.S. the success it is.

Finally, profit is what business is all about. Business profits are what build everybody's wealth. When we shame business profits we attack our very welfare.

Having said that, I hate facebook and everything it stands for. I don't use it. But that isn't the point. The point is that the free market way of dealing with it is not to use it. Advertise against it. Compete with it. Criticize it publicly. Set up blocks to keep young girls from accessing the site. Asking government to make things worse is not the answer. I was shocked at the response I heard from the senators.

 

If I understand the issue correctly, Instagram is the app that is causing the issues for young people - young girls in particular. FB is what has been used for disinformation. In both cases, I think it's morally reprehensible for the company to KNOW this is occurring but choose to do nothing. But as @Aleksander Ulyanov stated, the company's priority is to make money for shareholders. FB will take a big hit in their reputation (what little they have left), but I'm not sure what legal penalties can be imposed.

Parenting has taken on a new challenge when it comes to social media and their kids. They need to rise to that challenge on all fronts. Difficult, I know, but if they want healthy and happy children, they need to be aware of what their kids are doing and seeing.

 

Your theory is baseless as FB blocks anything to do with questioning the vaccine. I'm not sure how unvaxxed can be influenced by news that isn't permitted on the site.

 

Zuckerberg himself is the primary disinformation outlet on anything to do with Covid. His decisions to block discussion on the origin, treatment, and mandates has harmed us all. And it wasn't about his shareholder profits. It was about his ideology.

 

Me too, 9 years here. I recommend everyone abandon these partisan hacks before they destroy us.

 

Zuck and Facebook content does NOT have to affect us or our tinkling. Those that choose to participate on there are accepting the misinformation by choice. In many ways platforms like FB promote "group think". It also reinforces narcissism. When one thinks about it.......the Name FACEBOOK......makes no sense. It is not even"catchy"

 

This is why that due to the arrogance of multi national companies, the corporate rules need to be updated to reflect the not agonizing enough decision to sell the US workforce’s future down the river to make a buck.
BTW… Archiving lunches? Do tell…

 

Facebook didn't start out with everyone discussing politics. When it first came on people would spend hours recording the minutiae of the their lives, often in excruciating detail. One of the more famous examples of this was people photographing their lunch, and not expensive preparations where "presentation" was an important part of the premium price, just normal meals, sometimes even cafeteria fare. It was a standard joke at one time and not that long ago.

 

Facebook reflects it's origin. On one or another college bulletin board students would post a picture of their face with a brief description so that they could become familiar to the whole campus.. This was called the school's "Facebook". Zuckerberg is said to have gotten the idea there.

 

Never had one and never missed it, but that's sort of because I can't figure out precisely how they work and the idea of suddenly and inadvertently putting my entire life on public view terrifies me quite thoroughly

 

The Ocean is only rising by inches and has only begun rising recently. Look at the Rock in 20 years (if you can still see it?)

https://riskfinder.climatecentral.o...forecastType=NOAA2017_int_p50&level=5&unit=ft

 

In plain English, she wants to fly the flag of Germany's National Socialist Party and set up a Ministry of Truth to engage in censorship.

It's really hard to take someone seriously when they can't even understand the difference between misinformation and disinformation.

Misinformation is an error ---usually harmless -- that is casually repeated.

If you want to see a stellar example of misinformation, all you have to do is google "baby names" and you'll see several 100,000 examples of misinformation.

Who created the original baby name website? I don't know, but it would be an easy task to find out.

The names in the original baby name website contained grotesque errors.

Other people wanted to set up websites with advertising to make money, and they were so lazy, they didn't do any research on baby names.

All they did was go to the original baby name website and copy and paste the names into their website.

Then, other people plagiarized the baby names from the people who plagiarized the names from the original.

Can I prove that in court? Absolutely yes. Trained forensic document examiners like me know that one way to spot a forgery is the forged document contains an error in the original document.

Look at the baby names that are alleged to be of "Native American" (snicker) origin.

Only 4 of those names are truly Native American. The other names were made up by White Men who were writing Western-genre fiction books, or Western-genre screenplays for films and TV series.

The White writer had an Indian character and need a Indian name for the character, but instead of contacting an Indian tribe in the geographic region where the action is set, they simply made up a name.

And then they made up a meaning for the made-up name they created.

Of the four names that really are Native American, they're attributed to the wrong Indian tribes and only one of them right.

It is deliciously funny that all these women are giving their daughters a Native American name that they think means "beautiful flower" when it actually means spy; traitor; or someone who does something in secret.

Misinformation is also the genesis of urban myths.

One urban myth is that it is against the law for your former employers to tell a prospective employer anything other than the dates of your employment.

One security company found out the hard way, because they drank the Kool-Aid and it cost them $3.7 Million. And that was just the punitive damages. It cost them $10s of $Millions more in lost revenues in the years following and they eventually went out of business.

Another urban myth that you'll see on websites is that it's only a Ponzi-scheme if it offers a high Rate of Return on Investment.

There is one, and only one, Element of Proof necessary to sustain a guilty verdict and get a conviction for a Ponzi-scheme: The underlying financial scheme is not viable.

That's it.

The interest rate offered is irrelevant and not an Element of Proof and as a juror, the judge will instruct you that you are forbidden to discuss interest rates. Likewise, whether anyone lost money or not is not an Element of Proof and the judge will forbid jurors from discussing that.

Yeah, that's right. 1,000s of Ponzi-scheme operators are in prison even though they offered 0% or no ROI at all, and even though at the time of sentencing -- which is after they were convicted -- no one had yet lost any money.

You can see the harm misinformation causes.

Your grandma thinks it can only be a Ponzi-scheme if the interest rate is ridiculously high, so she invests the $50,000 she saved into a scheme that only offers 3.5%.

It makes no difference if I con 10 people into giving me $1 Million each or I con 200 people into giving me $50,000 each.

At the end of the day, I'm sitting on $10 Million.

Disinformation is information that is false, deceptive, misleading or distorted in order to push an agenda or affect the outcome of any event, or for purposes of persuasion.

I could cite examples of that all day long.

Claiming that there is a "climate crisis" and that action is necessary to prevent sea level rise while withholding the fact that sea levels in all 8 previously recorded Inter-Glacial Periods were 4 meters to 14 meters higher than present is a bright shining example.

 

I don't see where she's suing them.

You guys got it right.

But to clarify, publicly-traded corporations have a legal duty to share-holders, not just a fiduciary duty.

The Imperial Roman Catholic Church is the architect of corporations.

The Poops granted corporate charters. In fact, only the Roman Catholic Church could grant corporations for about 600 years. After Henry VIII created the Church of England then that church issued corporate charters until kings started encroaching on the authority of the Imperial Roman Catholic Church and issued their own corporate charters.

The Poops allowed municipalities and trade guilds such as the Dyer's Guild to incorporate. Yes, there really was a Dyer's Guild. They made dyes for fabrics and pigments for paints and inks. Those were all trade secrets.

We know when non-compete agreements first existed because the very first case called "Anonymous" was filed around 1415 and it involved a member of the Dyer's Guild. Unfortunately, pages and documents are missing so we don't know how the Crown Court ruled, but we have a clue from another case. That case is called "Blacksmiths" or officially Blacksmiths of South Mimms at 2 Leo. 210, 3 Leo. 217 (1587).

South Mimms is a small town near Tottenham (as in the Tottenham Spurs) and the Blacksmith Guild hired a guy as an apprentice and made him sign a non-compete agreement not to work in South Mimms once he completed his training. The apprentice-turned-journeyman doesn't want to leave South Mimms, so he sets up shop there and the Blacksmith Guild sued him to enforce the non-compete agreement.

How did the Court rule? The judge threw the blacksmiths in jail and the journeyman took over all the blacksmithing in South Mimms. That's a little harsh, but that's what Crown Courts thought about non-compete agreements.

Anyway, later, kings granted corporate charters and the primary purpose was to allow those entities to function as a sort of "State Department" and manage foreign affairs.

In Colonial America, colonial governors had the right to grant corporate charters, then as the colonies evolved into States, it was the State governors, then the legislatures took over the role of writing the statutes for incorporation.

You should know that initially, corporations were allowed to do one thing and one thing only. That means you could produce films, or you could own TV stations, or you could own distribution networks or you could own movie theaters, but you could not do one or more or all of those things simultaneously.

There's something else. Corporations were required to do something to benefit the community or the State. Those two conditions and other conditions and limitations placed upon corporations were removed from the statutes over time so that corporations can do whatever they want. That's one of several reasons why for the longest time, all publicly-traded corporations incorporated in the State of Delaware.

Note that corporations aren't necessary for any economy and in your economy, only 3% of all businesses are publicly-traded corporations and they employ only 5.6% if your work-force.

That means 97% of you businesses are not corporations and they employ 94.4% of your work-force.

If States stopped issuing corporate charters, there would be no negative consequences for your economy.

Very obviously, y'all been electing all the wrong people all the time for a very long time.

 

Then, in a Free Society, the correct course of action is for parents to become more involved in parenting their children, and for educational institutions to use the Socratic Method and other means of inquiry to teach children and young adults how to identify both misinformation and disinformation.

 

Thanks you for that info...... Now that makes sense.

 

I too have never had a n account......and would not. I (personally) just don't see any value in posting anything about my life on the internet. . It makes a mockery of those that want "privacy"... In many ways the whole concept is rather self indulging...but then each to his own.

 

At first I thought Frances H. was a straight shooter and legitimate whistleblower.

Hearing her speak a few times since, I'm beginning to think she is rather a Trojan Horse, a false flag sent by the company itself.

 

Did she say anything about how Covid censorship harmed us? If not, I don't trust her.

 

Do you have facts to back that up or are you just shamelessly trying to spin your own opinion as news?
It seems to me most lefties get their news from social media, especially since many “conservative” things in social media are banned, suspended or canceled
This strategy of blaming the right for things the left does reeks of desperation

sad

 

Try reading the first sentence of post #3.

 

Facebook whistleblower to appear before UK Parliament

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology...C News Newsletter]-2021October12-[technology]

 

after what happened to the cigarette industry, there are now laws protecting the food industry, they can not be sued

I think Facebook is protected too - though it is embarrassing for them and shows how little they care for the American people

trying to intentionally push divisive stuff to people to get them coming back is disgusting

as for the whistleblower, she better be rich or this was a bad life choice for future employment

 

She's a staged "whistleblower" a fake news prop for the propagandists

​

 

A number of years ago, I read up on the psychology of Facebook and immediately deleted my account.

It's a great place for narcissists.

 

You appear to have good instincts. Having your whole life permanently inscribed, for all to see increases partisanship and division with society. If one has argued for a cause on their profile for years, and his or her friends can all see it, forever, then their profile becomes part of their view of self. They become much less likely to change their views, no matter the evidence they see, because it would require denying oneself that is etched in stone.