Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Facebook and Leftist ‘Whistleblower’ Want Congress to Censor and Regulate Online Speech

Facebook and Leftist ‘Whistleblower’ Want Congress to Censor and Regulate Online Speech

Suspicious: “Whistleblower” on 60 Minutes, Facebook goes down, “whistleblower” testifies,” and Facebook agrees we need “standard rules” for the internet.

Is anyone taking Facebook “whistleblower” Frances Haugen seriously? This former Facebook product manager with deep ties to the left did nothing but spew leftist talking points to build a case for a government takeover of social media.

Some Background on the “Whistleblower”

Well, first off, it’s a good thing America is a republic. If Facebook destabilizes democracies then we are safe!

Secondly, Haugen donated to far-left Democrats, including AOC.

Whistleblower Aid lawyers represent Haugen pro-bono:

Those lawyers are Whistleblower Aid, a group founded by Mark Zaid, who previously represented the national security official who alleged that Donald Trump inappropriately pressed the Ukraine president on a phone call to, in turn, investigate whether Joe Biden inappropriately pressed the country to drop an investigation into his son’s firm, Burisma.

The identity of that “whistleblower” — who did not have first-hand knowledge of the call — was fiercely shrouded. But some outlets reported that it was Eric Ciaramelli, Joe Biden’s top advisor on Ukraine. That position meant he could have been personally implicated by any misconduct Joe Biden may have undertaken around Ukraine during the Obama administration. It could have also been motivated by personal loyalty: Ciaramelli was close enough to Biden that Biden invited him as a guest to a State Department dinner.

Haugen’s Testimony Filled With Leftist Talking Points

The talking points are insane. The left is not hiding. They are getting bolder, putting their agenda in the spotlight:

Haugen spoke at length about how “Facebook can change, but is clearly not going to do so on its own,” imploring the legislators to act.

She went on to urge senators to overhaul Section 230, which shields digital platforms from lawsuits over content posted by their users, specifically suggesting that Facebook and other tech giants be made legally liable for decisions about how to rank content in users’ feeds.

“They have a hundred percent control over their algorithms, and Facebook should not get a free pass on choices it makes to prioritize growth and virality and reactiveness over public safety,” she said.

Let’s pull at the heartstrings because if you dare to argue with her statement you must hate children, right? The best way to shut up the opposition you must use children.

FOR THE CHILDREN. You must fight climate change for the children! Children are the hallmark of that stupid “human” infrastructure bill.

Offending content? Who decides what is offensive content? Considering Haugen is a leftist activist I do not trust her deciding what is offensive.

“The buck stops with Mark.” No one holds Mark Zuckerberg accountable so we must have the government step in, right?

Also, how does a whistleblower manage to gain such fast publicity on other social media outlets?

Haugen hates Facebook and yet she joined Twitter.

Facebook Agrees!


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Gaslighter more than whistle-blower

Anti-trust has existed for over a century. Busting up FB, Google, and Amazon would accomplish much of what this fraud supposedly wants, but anyone with a brain knows that’s the point of her charade. She, her handlers and much of the federal government want any opposition silenced.

    Paddy M in reply to Paddy M. | October 5, 2021 at 7:51 pm

    *not the point.

    Milhouse in reply to Paddy M. | October 6, 2021 at 1:12 am

    So what if antitrust has existed for over a century? Wrong doesn’t become right just because it’s old. Antitrust was a creation of pure hatred and envy by the political class against the productive class, the same hatred and envy that drives Marxism and every other left movement. “You didn’t build that” is its motto. There is no moral excuse for it.

Interesting. She wants Section 230 changed to make it more prescriptive, not repealed. She’d make it safe for these companies to be lefty but not to be righty.

I’d repeal it and get these platforms totally out of the editorial business. That’s the LAST thing she would want.

This circus act really is funny. Track this pitiful clown going forward to see what her reward is.

It’ll be a lot more effective to build a “conservative” internet and let the left have Facebook et al. If we could get all of the right to gather on their own platforms, the left would inevitably follow. They couldn’t help themselves.

Great timing, I started to delete my Facebook account early yesterday.

Wow. She is glowing so brightly we could use her to light a whole city.

This is the point of “whistleblowers.” To advance a political agenda.

Actual whistle blowing is verboten.

theduchessofkitty | October 5, 2021 at 10:38 pm

If she’s a whistleblower, I’m Whitaker Chambers.

So when do CRT whistleblowers get their day in front of Senate/House?

oh wait- they get their day in front of an FBI star chamber interrogation.

Your not wrong, and to quote the Critical Drinker’s great out take “I definitely smell shoit”

I haven’t seen a self-serving hustler peddle a hustle this transparent, since watching Billy Ray Valentine impersonate a blind, Vietnam War veteran in “Trading Places.”

This twit worked for Facebook, yet owes close to fifty grand in back taxes? After earning a (presumably) generous, six-figure salary, plus stock options? I sense a drug addiction, a gambling addiction; something driving her desperate need for attention and a financial windfall. Coming soon — the inevitable book deal and TV mini-series deal.

If we don’t secure pro-free speech regulations Democrats will secure pro-censorship of non-leftist legislation.

Sorry but there is no middle ground, social media is very much the modern public square.

She was doing a job interview for the oversight panel she wants the feds to set up. Nice cushy job, great benefits, plenty of travel opportunities and an easy way to keep Mark informed as to what may be going down

Let’s talk about what this is really about: eliminating competition to the left’s stranglehold on social media. Google, Facebook, and Twitter have their algorithmic censorship down pat. Any competition would be required to implement it if Section 230 disappears because manual policing of social media sites is impossible. This enormous cost would eliminate startups in the space, and make life hell for sites like Odyssey and Rumble, who would be sued into oblivion by the left.

How about eliminating Sec 230 protection for platforms with over 15 million users? That allows smaller players to scale up while enjoying the same protection the current giants enjoyed in their infancy.

The giant platforms should then be allowed a choice;
1. Retain Sec 230 but without any sort of thumb on the scale allowed; they would be a blank canvas which users would fill in unimpeded with lawful content.
2. No Sec 230. They could choose to put their thumb on the scale but would be liable for tort damages when they caused harm. No balance test but with the risk of a antitrust break up into red/blue competition.

Why did the Biden Administration have to find someone right outta “Legally Blonde”? Couldn’t they have found an authentic looking nerd sellout in a company full of nerds? Lack of imagination is big problem for “Plugs” Biden and his gang of Clinton retreads.

They have been censoring speech for a long time. Months ago, I wrote my personal opinion at the time when the narco Communists there started tearing town after town, and at the same time claiming ‘police brutality’. Sounds familiar? Well, FB wrote me a note threatening me that if I didn’t retracted my opinion, I will be kicked out of FB. I had to write a note ‘acknowledging my mistake’, or else. I did not use bad language or insulted anybody in particular, only referred to the thugs as THUGS. I felt I was in Cuba making a ‘public confession’. Somebody in my country of origin was watching closely. This woman is after something. Ughhh.

“Government does not have enough control over our company” said no whistleblower headed to Congress, ever.