Facebook’s Invisible Elite Rules Highlight Zuckerberg’s Blatant Lies

Equal Footing Lie

I have little use for Facebook. I don’t trust it and never did. Today the WSJ has an article on Facebook that is hardly surprising. 

Please note Facebook Says Its Rules Apply to All. Company Documents Reveal a Secret Elite That’s Exempt.

Mark Zuckerberg has publicly said Facebook Inc. allows its more than three billion users to speak on equal footing with the elites of politics, culture and journalism, and that its standards of behavior apply to everyone, no matter their status or fame.

In private, the company has built a system that has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules, according to company documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The program, known as “cross check” or “XCheck,” was initially intended as a quality-control measure for actions taken against high-profile accounts, including celebrities, politicians and journalists. Today, it shields millions of VIP users from the company’s normal enforcement process, the documents show. Some users are “whitelisted”—rendered immune from enforcement actions—while others are allowed to post rule-violating material pending Facebook employee reviews that often never come.

In 2019, it allowed international soccer star Neymar to show nude photos of a woman, who had accused him of rape, to tens of millions of his fans before the content was removed by Facebook. Whitelisted accounts shared inflammatory claims that Facebook’s fact checkers deemed false, including that vaccines are deadly, that Hillary Clinton had covered up “pedophile rings,” and that then-President Donald Trump had called all refugees seeking asylum “animals,” according to the documents.

Lies After Lies After Lies

The documents that describe XCheck are part of an extensive array of internal Facebook communications reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. They show that Facebook knows, in acute detail, that its platforms are riddled with flaws that cause harm, often in ways only the company fully understands.

Moreover, the documents show, Facebook often lacks the will or the ability to address them.

At least some of the documents have been turned over to the Securities and Exchange Commission and to Congress by a person seeking federal whistleblower protection, according to people familiar with the matter.

Time and again, the documents show, in the U.S. and overseas, Facebook’s own researchers have identified the platform’s ill effects, in areas including teen mental health, political discourse and human trafficking. Time and again, despite Congressional hearings, its own pledges and numerous media exposés, the company didn’t fix them.

Pervasive Problem

This problem is pervasive, touching almost every area of the company. Whitelists “pose numerous legal, compliance, and legitimacy risks for the company and harm to our community.

The Solution?

The WSJ comments “One potential solution remains off the table: holding high-profile users to the same standards as everyone else.”

Lies and Perjury

Facebook’s treatment of Trump raises howls, but It is within bounds of the law for Facebook to have rules and to claim Trump violated them.

It is not within the bounds of the law to lie to Congress.

Please consider False Statements to the Government Can Land You in Jail written in 2010 and the examples are dated.

With the recent indictment of baseball great Roger Clemens, federal perjury and false statement charges are back in the news. While these charges tend to create press attention when they target celebrities—think Martha Stewart and rap star Lil’ Kim—they are powerful, and common, tools that federal prosecutors also use against ordinary individuals every day. And while these tactics may be common, the penalties are serious: a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000, for either charge.

Perjury vs. False Statement

You probably already know what perjury is—lying under oath. For example, if you lie to a grand jury, the Securities and Exchange Commission or any other federal or state agency about an important fact while giving testimony under oath, that’s perjury. If you lie to an FBI agent or other government agent who has knocked on your door, or when you sign a document making a certification you know is false, you haven’t committed perjury because you weren’t under oath. But you may have violated the federal law prohibiting making false statements, and the penalties are just as severe. 

Consequences of Lies and Perjury

There should be consequences to lies and perjury. 

If Zuckerberg lied to Congress, and I believe he repeatedly did, the way to stop the lies is to hold CEOs accountable. 

Fine Zuckerberg $250,000 (that won’t matter at all to him), and send him to prison for 5 years (that will).

Then we can address rules and how to enforce them. 

Please Subscribe!

Like these reports? If you do, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

21 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jackula
Jackula
2 years ago
We are moving away from being a rule of law country. The consequences are showing and in the long term will be horrendous.
RonJ
RonJ
2 years ago
“It is not within the bounds of the law to lie to Congress.”
That law doesn’t matter. I don’t expect to see Fauci prosecuted. He is one of the protected elites.
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Never used it. Never saw the need for it. So advertising revenue moved from local papers to FB and this is what we end up with?
anoop
anoop
2 years ago
do you want people to be able to share your blog on facebook?
Webej
Webej
2 years ago
Problem with prosecuting perjury and lying to congress is the same as always: Some are prosecuted, others get off scot free.
The same applies to Facebook policies.
And social media companies are always crawling behind their algorithms to pretend it’s all machine glitches when they are taking highly individual and personal actions.
People like to stress that the law=the law, or policy=policy, but those are the most brain dead tautologies possible.
Nothing but a way to make others shut up. The discretion that goes into who is prosecuted and who is not is in many respects more important than the laws themselves. Just as editorial bias is not so much in false news, but in what is ignored and what is promoted.
[I am against taking anything down that is not illegal and cannot be contested by judicial process.]
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
2 years ago
I don’t know anybody or visit blogs where Facebook isn’t shunned. Most people I interact with know it’s stolen goods and a serious data harvesting operation. 
What does it say about the billions of Facebook users?
FromBrussels
FromBrussels
2 years ago
I still remember how my grandfather used to say occasionally, while judging situations, that 80 % of the population are plain idiots, the poor man died too early in 1974, the way things have evolved in recent decades, I d say we must by now have reached a 90% level(and ticking)  of banal brainless fools… most of them FB users… 
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Facebook is a symptom of our national disease…..but I fully expect it to continue to do exactly what it does….which is nothing good, particularly. But people love FB and they will have their FB. And Zuckerberg will mostly get whatever he wants out of government. Because money.
DennisAOK
DennisAOK
2 years ago
Why not let anyone post anything? The reader can judge the veracity of each comment. 
Corvinus
Corvinus
2 years ago
Reply to  DennisAOK
I’d argue that the government presence on those platform amounts to endorsement of it and as such should make it bound by free speech law, regardless of whether they are a ‘private platform’ or not.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
2 years ago
Reply to  Corvinus
Totalitarian governments have “presence” everywhere. It’s what totalitarian is all about.
All that these silly posturing achieves, is help Facebook maintain the illusion that it has any credibility whatsoever. Government, to the extent they have “presence” there, should leave. Not just Facebook, but every other piece of private media as well. Stick to .gov sites if they want to inform people of something. Then the private actors can spin and lie about what’s written there, to their hearts’ content.
None of the rest have any a priori credibility. They should all be assumed to be complete 100% useless liars. From Facebook to NYT to Pravda. And no government should make any effort whatsoever, aimed at de facto reassuring people that any of them is anything at all aside from full blown peddlers of nothing but self serving lies. Since self serving is their entire mission. And that does not change just because some totalitarian government and its kangaroo courts pretend to “police” them, hence give them some veneer of credibility.
Corvinus
Corvinus
2 years ago
Reply to  StukiMoi
Good points.
Esclaro
Esclaro
2 years ago
Zuckerberg in prison? He should be tortured and executed for his crimes!
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
2 years ago
Reply to  Esclaro
Dude, all he “has done” is help create a Website……
Bungalow Bill
Bungalow Bill
2 years ago
My problem is not with Facebook. It is what it is. If you go there, you agree to the terms to use their product.
I have a bigger problem with the small government crowd who wants to crush this and other social media companies using the power of big government to do so (as they push for a Fairness Doctrine for social media after years of crying over the Fairness Doctrine) rather than close their accounts and allow the free market to shape the future of these platforms.

I closed my accounts last year and have found peace; although, I did enjoy the occasional conversation with authors like Mish.

Corvinus
Corvinus
2 years ago
Reply to  Bungalow Bill
There’s no possible way to maintain a presence on every single social media platform in order to give it the semblance of being fair – it’s just infeasible.
I would argue that no government entity or government-related entity should have accounts on these platforms because doing so implies endorsement of that platform by the government. That endorsement amounts to an unfair competitive advantage because the government is in effect playing favorites.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
2 years ago
Reply to  Corvinus
+ a lot.
Government monopolized .gov. They should stick to that, and leave the rest peddle whatever the heck they fancy.
Corvinus
Corvinus
2 years ago
Why does Zuckerberg even have to hold everyone to the same standard? As the host of this site has said time and again, it’s a private platform right?
That’s the excuse used to wave off any complaints about the influence of this and other platforms and their antagonism to free speech.
whirlaway
whirlaway
2 years ago
Reply to  Corvinus
Yes.  In a corporatist system of government, corporate censorship IS government censorship.   
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
2 years ago
Are public testifications in front of Congress held to the same legal liability as private ones ? Or those given to subcommittees in private ?
Jojo
Jojo
2 years ago
‘All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others’
–Animal Farm/Orwell

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.