but we should wonder, whether facebook is just fundamentally evil? is facebook evil? >> i cannot see into the hearts of men. i think there is a real thing of -- good people, and facebook is full of kind, conscientious, empathetic people -- >> you have to leave -- >> but good people with bad incentives are led to bad actions. people are willing to look the other way. >> the number of athletes in history -- >> >> yes, yes -- >> and evil, maybe that's an overly more lipstick word. but the way that some of the outcomes of its behavior, they are evil. >> i think it's -- >> malevolent? >> malevolent complies intent. but there is a pattern of inadequacy, being able to not acknowledge its power. that hides the difference. children are not adults. they believe in flatness. and so i think that is negligence? and it is ignorance. but i cannot see into their hearts. >> i respect your desire to answer the question in your own way. but given the evidence, i think a reasonable person seeing the consequences of the company's behavior, would have to conclude, the way they are performi

is facebook evil? >> i cannot -- i think there's a real thing of people, good people, facebook is over mumbling full of conscientious, kind, empathetic people, good people who are embedded in systems with bad incentives are led to bad actions. there's a real pattern of people who are willing to look the other way, are promoted more than people who raise alarms. >> we know where that leads in history, don't we? so could we compromise that is not evil, maybe that's a moralistic word, but the way that some of the outcomes of facebook's behavior is evil? >> i think it's negligence. >> malevolent? >> malevolent has implied content and i cannot stand to the hearts of men but at least there is a pattern of inadequacy that facebook is unwilling to acknowledge its own power pickett believes in a world of flatness which hides the difference like children are not adults, right? they believe in flatness and it won't accept the consequences of their actions. i think that is negligence and it is ignorance, but i can

i used to work at facebook. i became a whistleblower that half a year ago in a pro and i at facebook i spent my spare time catching for in that know governments who are you who are using fake accounts to mislead and repress their citizen ident wordpress on the army imo. but i am here to provide context based on my knowledge at facebook and the which of the best to the writing your people in the lawsuit and to all the people have miano in the struggle against the repressive military regime . i say thank you for bringing your inside and knowledge if you have questions for any of our guest now at a time to ask them if you're a new chief, jumping to the comment section, be part of today's program. jason, i'm going to start on my laptop, but this seems like an all day. shes claim we're hing our facebook claim. lawyers representing the ringer, people around the world. closing those living in refugee camps in bangladesh have launched a coordinated legal actions against facebook. public id by the me and my regime and ex

facebook knows a huge amount about you today like that your question about on of us on facebook is not accurate for what's happening and we still see these harms. but the third thing is the real problem is systems of amplification. like this is not a problem about individuals. it's about having a system that prioritizes and mass distributes divisive polarizing extend content, and that in situations where you just limit content -- not limit, when you just show more content from your family and friends you get for free safer, less dangerous content. i think that's the greater solution. >> so very finally just in terms of anonymity for this report, then you think we should be focusing more on the proliferation of content to larger numbers than we should on anonymity, the source of the content pgh yes. the much more scalable effective solution is thinking about how its content is distributed on this platforms, one of the vices of algorithms, what are they distributing more of an concentration. like people getting pounded with that content. for example, this happens on both sides, both peop

and that's not what we signed up for with facebook in the 1st place. and it's definitely not something that a mega company that governs something like a communication platform. it's not something they should be involved in. again, we're anti it as an american, we're generally anti restriction of our freedoms and something that so censorship heavy is really uncomfortable. well, and this goes back to the question, is facebook a platform and information platform? is it actually create information itself? and when you sit there and say, you have the fact checkers who have protected opinions, it seems to be that you're actually an aggregator yourself. but i guess that's all going to be decided by a judge recently to get your take on this, you know, due to met his own data about their social media apps affecting teenagers, the u. k. cosmetic company love for many of you that don't know, it's kind of like a so make your own kind of soap and lotion type of product has now deleted all of their social media, facebook, instagram, tick, tock, snapshot, which is a

facebook will tell you that means they can't— facebook will tell you that means they can't give you data, this is not true — they can't give you data, this is not true. , , ., , they can't give you data, this is not true. , i. , ., ., not true. let me put you up to what mark zuckerberg _ not true. let me put you up to what mark zuckerberg said _ not true. let me put you up to what mark zuckerberg said in _ not true. let me put you up to what mark zuckerberg said in response. i not true. let me put you up to what l mark zuckerberg said in response. he says i think most of us presuming facebook employees don't recognise the picture of the company being painted and he said at the heart of these activations is this idea we prioritise profit of a safety and well—being. that'sjust prioritise profit of a safety and well—being. that's just not true. we well-being. that's 'ust not true. we are well—being. that'sjust not true. - are looking really closely at what is publicly available right now from francis plus plus testimony and we are looking at that publicly available information but i

how does that affect facebook? will if it does, there's a problem for facebook. at facebook was operating within me and mar and the, the insightful speech that led people to a violent and genocidal deportation of the ringing get from me and married 2017 that these events occurred within me in that facebook's trying, i think to be a little bit sneaky about this, they're suggesting that they can operate in a country like me and that they can cause chaos in the country like me in math. but when it comes to a legal responsibility for their actions, they want to rely upon the notion that they are ultimately a united states company, and that they should be, that they should be judged by the standards of the law in the united states. i mean, i think this is very much the way companies operated in the colonial era where they would absolutely ravage poor countries. they would take the economic resources from them as they court. and then they'd rely upon the notion that they were acting legally within their own legal framework and, and use that as a shield to prevent the v

plus, the facebook files, shocking revelations from a whistleblower and former facebook employee who went to capitol hill to accuse the company of prioritizing profits over people. and a key early investor in facebook speaks out, reid hoffman tells me he is disappointed in the social network and immediately gets a call from mark zuckerberg. all of that coming up. facebook doubling down on the metaverse, so much so the company calls itself meta-. we spoke to the vice president of the global business group. >> we don't see it as a risk, we are coming off the company and the excitement of the company is very real and meta captures where our company is going and the future that we want to build but our mission has not changed. meta's focus is around building the metaverse, continuing to let people connect, to grow businesses in the way they have with the facebook family of apps over the almost 20 years that we have been going. it really reflects and also solves the confusion that there has been caused by a company named sharing the same name as our biggest app. facebook started as a sing

i used to work at facebook. i joined the company because i believe facebook has the potential to bring out the best in us. i am here today because i believe facebook's products harm children, a stoked division in our communities, threaten our democracies, we our national security and much more. facebook is a company that's paid for its immense profits with our safety and security. i'm honored to be here to show -- share what i know and i'm grateful for the level of scrutiny these issues are getting. i hope we can focus on the real harm to real people rather than talk in abstractions. this is about the teenagers whose mental health is undermined by instagram and it's about their parents and teachers who were struggling to deal with the consequences of that harm. it's about the doctors and nurses who have to cope with conspiracies about covid-19 and vaccines. it's about people who have suffered harassment online. it's about families at home and around the world who live in places where hate, fear have been raven -

what is facebook saying about this? >> facebook will always tout and promote that they have all these moderators, all this artificial intelligence that can catch these ads which are clear violations of their rules. but they didn't catch then until cnn brought them to their attention. the ad about comparing the u.s. government crackdown and restrictions on covid to the nazi regime, and calling the vaccines a holocaust tool, those two ads got taken down, facebook said, after cnn brought it to their attention, but that ad, i don't know if we can show it again, make hanging traitors great again, that's still up on the platform. that's not seemingly against facebook's rules, even though this is just months after we saw gallows outside the capitol and people chanting hang mike pence. >> some of these were run on instagram, which is owned by facebook. the c.o.o. of instagram is going to be testifying. do you know what we'll hear from him? >> we'll probably hear something along the lines of we know we have the issues, we have s

emily: the facebook files have revealed some of the ills of social media that facebook new internally, but from the public perspective, it appears you did not act on. that instagram was toxic to teens, only 5% of hateful content was taken down. is facebook taking a look in the mirror by now were running away or are you committing to double down and take some accountability for these issues? nicola: what we are seeing is a court needed effort to selectively use leaked documents to paint a false picture of our company and it does not in any way reflect the company that i know when that i am passionate about and that i love working about. i am actually really proud of our record navigating these complicated trade-offs involved in operating in the services of scale. look at the actions we have taken, look at the considerable investments we have made. if i take this year, we are on track to spend more than $5 billion on safety and security. i think that is more than any other tech company even if you adjust to scale. the fact that we have 40,000 people working on safety, working on securit

we will discuss this is facebook. so this fact checkers are from a 3rd party, therefore facebook themselves are not centering, one line of ideology over another. but what if facebook fail to mention? they are okay with these fact checkers having their own opinions. it's all in the details and we will discuss, and during this latest outbreak of deadly weather across the mid south, did companies choose to put a profit over the safety of their workers. we will give you all the details and discuss with our expert panel. and 1st, andrew has tried again to have complaints of abuse against him dismiss, or at the very least field we will let you know everything that's happened up until now and they just plain mexico. i'm a guy now hughes in these stories and more on today's news views right here on our team. erica, let's get started. ah, it's great to be with you today. you know, we all know major changes were made to facebook, now re branded as mehta back in 2016 after donald trump won the presidential election. all of these

. facebook admits its fact checkers. don't check facts. is facebook admitted here that it's fact checks are not really facts at all, but merely opinion assertions also by facebook claim and it's labels constitute opinions than doesn't that make it a publisher. facebook, your opinion piece is not exempt from being fact checked, even when they are clearly labeled as o peds or editorials. also, facebook are fact check labels cannot be false or defamatory because they consist sheet protected opinion, even though we present them. as fact, my question though is, what does facebook need these opinionated fact checkers for anyway, after all, over the years, it's proved, it's committed to free speech. it is giving people a voice, especially donald trump. it's dedicated to openness, transparency, and of course, democracy. i mean, it says all the time your democracy can't tolerate the speech of people. i'm not sure what kind of democracy it is. i do believe in giving people more access to information and more access to connect with

thank you sir. facebook users may have to reassess the information. they have been getting from the sites after its parent company, meta admitted in court, that so called fuck checks are based merely in my opinion. the revelation came during a legal battle initiative by journalist after his post worth liked of misleading. picking up enough, rti southgate taylor towns out the famous fact checkers who are busy labeling things false poverty, false misleading. i've actually been a bit loose with well, the facts. facebook yet again, found itself in court. this time up against to john list. he didn't like the bay slapped putney full sticker on one of his post. so he sued for defamation because facebook where he spent millions of dollars on legal fees over the years, it got creative this time and claimed that front check because don't decide what's false. so not based on fact, what to ridiculous idea, but on their opinion. hence the title, fact checkup i'm because opinion in america is sacred. you gone through it. it's a very, very nifty loophole. but just t

therefore, facebook themselves are not venturing one line of ideology over another, but what a facebook failed to mention that they are ok, but these fact checkers having their own opinions. it's all in the details and we will discuss. and during this latest outbreak of a deadly weather across the mid south, did companies choose to put profit over the safety of their workers. we will give you all the details and discuss with our expert panel. and pers, andrew has tried again to have complaints of abuse against him dismiss, or at the very least field we will let you know everything that's happened up until now and they just plain mexico tribe. i'm a guy now hughes in the stores and more on today's news views youth right here on our to america. let's get started. ah, you're going to be with you today. you know, we all know major changes that were made to facebook. now, re branded as mehta and back in 2016 after donald trump won the presidential election. all of these started, it began implementing what it calls, fact checkers as well. but now after a major lawsuit with a cable tv news hos

not the labels have fixed through the facebook platform. the labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory to the contrary, they constitute protect that opinion. so facebook has essentially admitted that, for fact, check, has facts, opp, optional. and of course, it does have a right to do this facebook as a private company. so it's policy is an internal matter. but the point is, is that it does have responsibility and accountability before it's roughly 3000000000 users wild wide. and actually speaking of then, undoubtedly who feel misled at best and maybe down right night to it was, they've been sharing that take on these latest developments. court filing, facebook admits it's fact checkers. don't check facts. is facebook admitted here that it's fact checks are not really fact checks at all, but merely opinion assertions also by facebook clement, its labels constitute opinions than doesn't that make it a publisher. facebook, your opinion piece is not exempt from being fact checked, even when they are clearly labeled as op eds or editor

i'm because facebook already spent millions of dollars on legal fees over the years. it got creative this time and claimed that front check was don't decide what's false, so not based on fact. what to ridiculous idea, but on their opinion. hence the title, fact checkup i'm because opinion in america is sacred. you can't sue it. it's a very, very nifty loophole. but just to really escape any liability whatsoever. facebook doubled down on how it gives it. fact check has a very long leash so matter identifies potential misinformation, for fact checkers to review and rate. it leaves the ultimate determination whether information is false so misleading to the fact checkers. and though meta has designed its platforms so that fact checker ratings appear next to content that the fact checkers have reviewed and rated. it does not contribute to the substance of those ratings. now you won't find any of these details in the giant fact checking section on facebook dot com. instead, you'll learn about how they interview thought fit and consult data and look for facts, you know, to

assertions also by facebook claims. look, your opinion piece is not exempt from being fact checked even when they are clearly labeled as o peds or editorials. also, facebook or fax labels can not be false or to pharma tree because they constitute protected opinion, even though we present them as fact. we don't facebook to put a whole section on its website dedicated to fact check as and it really does solid . while you know, a 2 organizations watching and 60 language as slice together. it's a rigorous process and that process involves identifying the problematic post and then reviewing it and apparently, and wanted to decide whether this post is asked to whether or not it goes straight to the sun. will sit into these people consult data. and that on the basis of these findings, that determines whether that content needs to be filtered or allowed to socket 8. so really does sound like a thorough only scientific process, no way in all of that. and bleeping, i've told i've some tool through it, there's a lot of it, there's

so, so say, you know, they did the auto suit facebook and facebook kind reprice. well, a story are, these are the eel. maybe they're just their opinions. i, these only are opinion date, your facts are wrong. does he sound bizarre? when i suppose facebook going to say it's free rock and a hard place has been so much criticism a over the years from all vetting things properly. is it, is it getting anything right these days? is it doing a better job than it used to? not at all because i what facebook does our is, is our, did they appoint our 3rd party fact checkers. and when you look arm a little bit closely about who the fuck chick is, are you find it? without exception, these are all are far left to our liberal organisations. are they are they tend to um, a label or falls. any information? did they simply do not agree with or any information that they feel evidence of how to say that though, puddle. what evidence if he got to say that, well, did they did, they did their court papers here. i'm reading from, from, from a defense by our, our facebook to our court case

also by facebook claim in its labels constitute opinions than doesn't that make it a publisher. facebook, your opinion piece is not exempt from being fact checked, even when they are clearly labeled as o peds or editorials. also, facebook or fax labels can not be false or to pharma tree because they constitute, protects that opinion, even though we present them, as fact. we don't facebook's got a whole section on its website dedicated to fact check, isn't it ready, does salad. while you know, a 2 organizations watching and 60 languages fighting lies together. it's a rigorous process and that process involves identifying the problematic post and then reviewing it. and apparently, and want to decide whether this post is actually or not, it goes straight to the source it interviews, people at consults, data and then on the basis of these findings that determines whether that content needs to be filtered or allowed to circulate. so it really does sound like a thorough a scientific process, no way in all of that. and bleeping actual lives of tool through that was a lot of it is absolutely no

as you're leading to facebook. so, so facing multiple antitrust law suits with all their various legal battles going on. and just just maybe touching what you answered there. could we see them taking a, you know, i type a softer approach for one of the better work. well, they could, but people on the political left on the hard left as zuckerberg and facebook are, they tend to never, ever move back toward the middle even under duress. i think we will find that they have the option to come back toward the center and say, hands off, let the people dark, let them figure out what's real and what's not. because objective truth always winds over fantasy. and again, i think this is the beginning of that crumbling away of the edifice of fantasy that facebook has been building all these years. but on the other hand, i don't think they'll do it. i don't think facebook considers moving toward the middle as an option. no more than their fellow climate agenda group called science feedback considers. moving back toward the middle

and of course, it does have a right to do this facebook as a private company. so it's policy is an internal matter. but the point is, is that it does have responsibility on accountability before it's roughly 3000000000 users wild wide. and actually speaking of that and undoubtedly who feel misled at best and may be downright night to it was they've been sharing that take on these latest developments. court filing, facebook admits it's fact checkers. don't check facts. is facebook admitted here that it's fact checks are not really fact checks at all, but merely pin him assertions also by facebook clement it's labels constitute opinions than doesn't that make it a publisher. facebook, your opinion piece is not exempt from being fact checked, even when they are clearly labeled as op eds or editorials. also, facebook or fax labels can not be false or defamatory because that constant sheet protects it opinion, even though we present them, as fact. we don't facebook to put a whole section on its website dedicated to fact check isn't it really does salad while you kno

once we fact check it, we can send it to facebook and facebook will depress it in. ready in august of 2016, i gave facebook the data that we had. and i said, you really have to look at this because, you know, you have us elections coming up and this is so alarming that trump could win. and we all laughed. we laughed. and then went from one in november, they asked me for the data again in the french elections. that data helped pulled down 30000 homes. this database, this big data is, is the story of how a robust democracy became a dictatorship. that's certainly where we seem to be headed so we can still fight it and we're using the data to that. ah ha, blue is mcculler. this guy, this is grease. are you? he's legal processes are being used against us. that does have impact on the business because the minute an advertiser now signed a contract with rapper. there's a risk involved for them. so what we did is very quickly when we saw the trend and that, that advertisers were scared. we then came up with a whole slew of different products that we could offer. so, discove

and then he turned to facebook. there's a £5.5 billion, according to your own cma figures £5.5 billion display advertising market in the uk. facebook has more than 50% of that. is that too much? er, yes. why? when companies have too much economic power, that creates a number of distortions, first for competitors, secondly for consumers. some level potentially in terms of the political process as well, in some cases. overnight, australia and facebook reached a compromise over a new law to force it and google to pay news publishers more for their content. facebook had blocked news content in the row, but that's now being restored. under a new deal, there will be mediation to agree payments before any final arbitration kicks in. i think that the australian approach is a sensible one, which is to try to force the companies into proper commercial negotiations, with the backstop of a possible intervention by a regulator. the tech giants argue that publishers choose to be on their platform because they derive value from

, facebook or formerly facebook. now meta has been really played by scandals for years, but especially this year i and the whistleblower francis house actually called for him to step down and really allow facebook or meta, pardon me to move on from the sort of assorted history they've had right now. we saw many founders of these major big tech companies stepping down this year, also recent years. we, you know, amazon, twitter, microsoft zuckerberg is really the main founder still leading his company and a, based on his company's track record. there's not a lot of reason to think it won't be the same going forward with the multiverse. so bit of a last man standing vibe there. now at the top of the show, christy, we talked about e laws in the making. how could you regulation shape, tech players in europe? right, well this regulation has been moving along was surprising. the surprising speed was really just announced just a little over a year ago, and we're already, i'm, as you said, going to be heading into official ne

he thinks that facebook is desperately trying to avoid a barrage of further lawsuits. facebook has found themselves back against the wall and if they try to cling to the idea that they are fact checking in court, they're going to lose. and not only is it going to cost them big dime, but it's an open the door to a flood of similar lawsuits in the near future. and it could be more than they can handle. i think they're hoping that by admitting that fact, jack just means opinion jack, when facebook puts a label on there, hoping to get out of this lawsuit without harm. and then just sink the story into the daily fountain of news events and hope people forget about it. in due time and in the, in the future you'll see changes in their labels. they'll stop using the word fact and they'll pater, ship right to control speech on their platform. but it won't be a false presentation like the word fact jack is false. okay, is begun to record all micron cases into thousands. the variant now accounts for 20 percent of infections in the country and nearly half in london when death linked to the so called

in the landmark a court case, facebook has admitted that it's 3rd parks. a 3rd party fact checks are just opinions. the revelations came during a legal battle that journalists are bringing against the social media giant. they're accusing it of defamation, after posts related to their work were flagged as false or t. saskia taylor takes up the story. well, facebook might have put itself a new name matter, but it seems that it's up to its old trick. the age old question of whether it's a free, an open platform or in fact, a giant tech company that is just censoring anyone. it does like, has yet to again, re and merge. now the latest revelations transpired from a neural suit filed against facebook by john list, and that's because one of his posts from about last year's california wildfires was fact checked and labeled pot default. so he said for defamation, as you said, but the social media platforms response has been to lift up the towns and say when it can't be defamation, because these flat check has what parenting out to rid the world of nasty misinformat

, facebook or formerly facebook. now meta has been really played by scandals for years, but especially this year and the whistleblower francis house actually called for him to step down and really allow facebook or meta, pardon me to move on from the sort of assorted history they've had right now. we saw many founders of these major big tech companies stepping down this year, also recent years. we, you know, amazon, twitter, microsoft zuckerberg is really the main founder still leading his company and a, based on his company's track record. there's not a lot of reason to think it won't be the same going forward with the multiverse. so bit of a last man standing vibe there. now at the top of the show, christy, we talked about e laws in the making. how could you regulation shape, tech players in europe? right, well this regulation has been moving along was surprising. the surprising speed was really just announced just a little over a year ago, and we're already, i'm, as you said, going to be heading into official nego