It may be counter-intuitive, but American investigative and Pulitzer winning journalist Glenn Greenwald makes a strong argument that paints Facebook whistleblower  Frances Haugen as “a vital media and political asset because she advances their (Facebook’s) quest for greater control over online political discourse.” So, about-face on our thinking, maybe? 

His argument goes like this: the imposition of greater content moderation in the wake of Haugen’s accusation about the threats and harms caused by the tech giant “could be the greatest gift one can give them, which is why their executives are often seen calling on Congress to regulate the social media industry. 

Any legal scheme that requires every post and comment to be moderated would demand enormous resources — gigantic teams of paid experts and consultants to assess “misinformation” and “hate speech” and veritable armies of employees to carry out their decrees.

Only the established giants such as Facebook and Google would be able to comply with such a regimen, while other competitors — including large but still-smaller ones such as Twitter — would drown in those requirements. And still-smaller challengers to the hegemony of Facebook and Google, such as Substack and Rumble, could never survive.” 

In the wake of Haugen’s testimony, Facebook issued a statement: “It’s been 25 years since the rules for the internet have been updated, and instead of expecting the industry to make societal decisions that belong to legislators, it is time for Congress to act,”  proving Greenwald’s argument.   

Greenwald says the solution doesn’t lie with Congress, for they know not what they are doing.