Carole Cadwallader’s getting really, really, excited here

Not entirely sure why:

And although the SEC found that Facebook had made “misleading disclosures”, including lying to journalists,

Lying to journalists isn’t a crime.

But the whole thing is Ha! Facebook! Evil! without any particular evidence of any evilry. About the worst that can be said about the latest revelations is that the company operates to the rules of shareholder primacy. Which is pretty much what the law and custom says it should be doing.

I maintain my standard position here. The huge screaming match is simply progressives insisting that if there’s a source of power – as Facebook could be – then progressives should b running it. And that’s all there is going on here.

21 thoughts on “Carole Cadwallader’s getting really, really, excited here”

  1. Progressives are running Facebook (and the other West Coast US tech giants).

    Are they the wrong sort (I think not looking at the censorious policies they enact) so what is it? Other Leftists being jealous of the amount of cash they are raking in?

  2. I agree with Zerg Muckerbark, this is a curious friendly fire incident. As usual Ms Catlady gets it completely wrong.

  3. Blast pressed submit too soon.

    All this “whistleblower” lady is demanding is more government regulation of Tech companies. She is not really exposing their biases, which we all know about. There is much derision from the Right about her.

  4. Agree with Longrider here – surely lying to journalists, particularly those of a ‘progressive’ leaning should be compulsory – anyone telling them the truth is at best naive and at worst stupid

  5. It’s regulatory capture. Facebook wants onerous regulation to stifle competition. End of story.

    The fake whistleblower bit is a twist, right enough. I guess someone thought Christine Blasey-Ford had been so successful, they’d give that strategy another shot.

    Y’know… I’m not sure these tech giants are as smart as they think they are.

  6. It’s a fight over who gets to hold the megaphone. East coast old media versus west coast new media.

    It was never about the message, only about power. Screaming that transwomen are real women is just a means of asserting power. (“How many genders are there, Winston? And if the party says there are 57 genders?”) Facebook accidentally stumbled on the technique of agree & amplify (“here’s a dropdown list of 57 genders”) which only angered the east coast liberals: they don’t want to win the argument, they just want everyone else to stew in resentment at their power over the discourse.

  7. “And we, and our increasingly fragile democracies and fraught teenagers, are living with the consequences.”

    Top marks for hyperbole

    How about condemnation of shock journalism making allegations that you can’t prove and subsequently losing court cases?

    It’s amazing to me she’s still in a job, leftie life support I suppose

  8. Starfish,

    “Top marks for hyperbole”

    Weak and stupid teenagers are always going to struggle, because they’re weak and stupid. Some kids get picked on at school and slit their wrists. Some others fight back, or just deal with it.

    If Facebook was really such a problem, you wouldn’t have a tiny increase in teen problems. It would be off the charts.

    My own belief in the problem of teens is that they don’t grow up fast enough. Most kids should leave school at 16, go to work and do something useful that gives them a sense of achievement and money. Girls should probably start breeding in their early 20s. That’s really good for mental health. Going to uni and studying something you really don’t want or need is bad for you.

  9. If you think Facebook is just another big company, I suggest, Tim, that you read Shoshona Zuboff’s “Surveillance Capitalism”.

  10. I’m not sure that it is, Andrew. The legacy media stand to gain just as much from a highly-regulated “social media“ as Facebook et al. do. It’s certainly about power and, as you say, who gets to hold the megaphone, but it’s more them-or-us than which-of-them.

    The internet disintermediated discourse, and those in power lost control of it. “Social media”, by concentrating the majority of discourse on a few websites, presents an opportunity for them to regain that power (as some of us have been warning from the get-go). So regulation suits Facebook, by making life difficult for upstart would-be competitors; it suits the legacy media, by making “social media” more like them; and it suits politicians by returning control of the agenda. It’s a win-win-win.

    Except for us, the people.

  11. Please, Tom, it’s Cadwalladr, though why anyone would trust a journalist who can’t even spell her own name …

  12. The entire Parler incident should be an example that the ‘you can always go somewhere else’ argument is now a blatant lie

  13. When they present a cogent argument that Remmington Typewriters and Basildon Bond must have their actions restricted, then I’ll treat them seriously.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *