Facebook is currently in its worst crisis. This is no surprise considering the number of crises that have preceded it. It is safe to say that trust in Facebook has fallen to its lowest point in 17 years. However, those who doubt the significance of recent whistleblower revelations regarding Facebook should forgive their doubts. If not for Facebooks monopolistic hold on the industry globally, then for years of pointless hearings with little talk of change but which invariably failed to deliver any.
Advertisement
This is a crisis and Facebook created it. It is also a crisis that Facebook must address from the inside. Public trust is still an asset Facebook must recover or face its death. Recent Facebook financial reports have shown that people may not see our products as useful, reliable, or trustworthy. This could impact how we attract and retain users, as well as their engagement.
Despite many years of hollow promises from Congress, Facebook, a trillion dollar employer with around 60,000 employees, suddenly found itself in a state of bedlam. This was due to one credible informant, who, despite portraying Facebook as a rudderless vessel, guided only by a broken moral compass and insisting that the company can still be salvageable and should not be allowed to sink.
Frances Haugen is now known as the Facebook whistleblower. She has demonstrated a quality that Facebook has ironically lost: Believability at every public appearance. On Tuesday, Capitol Hill, a purported hominoid Mark Zuckerberg sipped a glass of water. Haugen was the picture of coherence, unflappability and even gave life to a temporary ceasefire among bitter political rivals, instead steering them toward a mutually more conscienceless foe.
Haugen's confidence in herself was enough to justify all the commotion. She maintained a refreshing aura, of personal agency and responsibility that she displayed with ease through each poignant response. Haugen was not the only one, and she was never alone. She was counseled by Whistleblower Aid, one of the nation's most respected whistleblower groups, for the majority of the year.
Gizmodo's attorneys John Tye and Mark Zaid, who are both former whistleblowers to the government, gave insight into Haugen's experience with their organization as she was about to enter the light. This is what it takes and what it costs to whistleblower on a company that has a market capital of over $600 million.
This interview has been edited to be more concise and clear.
Gizmodo: Please tell us about the preparations that went into Haugen's public debut.
Advertisement
John Tye: Frances has a remarkable intelligence and is articulate. As an expert on social media algorithms and how they work, she arrived in the UK as a leading expert.
Society and users who have an impact. She is keen to share her concerns and story with people who can make a difference. It takes preparation and work to testify before Congress. We worked closely with Frances so she feels at ease before she testifies in front of the legislators.
Mark Zaid: Whistleblower Aid offers a number of services to its clients, including the ability to speak lawfully and effectively to the media as well as to any oversight bodies. These cases often speak for themselves. The media wants to be able to address the issues and have an opinion. Sometimes, the lawyer can help. Other times, the client will. If there aren't any legal concerns, such as with respect for national security or anonymity of an individual's identity, the client will be the best person to promote the content of the story. As a good lawyer, we prepare clients so that they can focus on answering questions correctly. Our media experts work with us to help people with simple questions like, "Where do you look when you talk to a camera?" How can you answer a question fluidly to make it seem positive? All aspects that can be linked to ensuring an individual's image and substance is at its best.
Advertisement
Gizmodo: Ms. Haugen filed multiple complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We need to know the details of her allegations.
Tye: Frances' complaints touch on misrepresentations regarding hate speech and violent or inciting content. They also mention the impact of Instagram on teenage girls. There is underinvestment in non English language content reviews. The platforms role in January 6 Capitol invasion. Investors are misled about advertising and users. Facebooks internal algorithms can amplify harmful speech.
Advertisement
Gizmodo: Can you elaborate a bit more on the role and purpose of your organization?
Zaid: Sure. John and I founded it in 2017. John was my client in 2014, when he was a whistleblower at State Department. We knew that we wanted to create an organization that would allow whistleblowers, especially those in national security, to speak out and not be subject to legal consequences. In recent years, there have been many whistleblowers that have, strictly speaking, stolen classified documents and released them to the media. While this may have some positive and negative effects depending on the subject matter, it is not recommended. It is not for the individual or the country. We identified a gap in the system that could provide whistleblowers with legal representation at no cost, which many of them can't afford, and to allow them to disclose all that is reasonably concerning them. While minimizing, if possible, any potential retaliation, It has been a great four-year success.
Advertisement
Gizmodo: Who decides to be a whistleblower in the face of injustice?
Zaid: Yeah, good question. There is a pattern to the types of whistleblowers. Most people don't intend to become whistleblowers. They didn't know they were doing it. People are simply bringing it to the attention proper authority figures, whether its owners or supervisors of a company, management in an agency or inspector general or an investigative oversight board like Congress. They're only bringing something they believe to be wrongdoing, mismanagement, or illegality. Whistleblowers can often be wrong, especially in intelligence communities, because they have a narrow view of the problem. However, this doesn't mean they didn't see or hear something that was legitimately concerning. It is important to be able bring the concern to appropriate oversight authorities in a legal way so that they are protected and nothing is compromised. We often see people who are very motivated. Its usually a public-service-minded motivation guiding them to do what they believe to be the right thing.
Advertisement
Gizmodo: What's it like to be a whistleblower in the real world?
Zaid: It certainly varies. It is important to ensure that the case doesn't become about the whistleblower and not the individual trying to reveal the information. If it becomes about the whistleblower rather than the substance, then you might have a problem. It doesn't always happen, but it often does. We do a lot to make sure that whistleblower clients understand the expectations and that they have a realistic view of those expectations. We are not going to solve all the world's problems one step at a moment. The whistleblower's worst enemy is often them. They often end up going down the wrong path if they don't have competent and experienced legal representation. This not only affects their personal well-being but also hinders the goal they initially set out to achieve regarding the whistleblower concerns.
Advertisement
Gizmodo: What is the most common mistake made by people?
Zaid: There are many things they don't understand or know. Hmm. Yes. There are many little tricks we can use when lawyers are experienced. We make sure federal whistleblowers in the national security area are not fired. We have been able to obtain permission from the agencies to allow these individuals to speak publicly to members of Congress and certainly to Congress without jeopardizing any of their employment. If it is classified, the scope of this request will be limited. Whistleblowers often become insubordinate or are perceived as being insubordinate by their supervisors. This is often because they feel they are not being heard or taken seriously enough. Sometimes, this could be true. We often observe that whistleblowers believe they know the best way to handle their case. That is why we have lawyers. This is why advisors are hired. We seek advice from others before making a major decision that will affect not only our life but also our career.
Advertisement
Gizmodo: It seems that there are only a few people in the country who witness acts of negligence or misconduct on the job. Is it okay for them or their employer to begin gathering evidence or talking to journalists and lawyers?
Zaid: It depends on the nature of the information. If it's classified information, we have more restrictions and concerns. This is because it's easy for someone compiling legitimately and for good reasons to be seen as an insider threat. Their conduct matches that of leakers and spies. How you print, save, and transmit documents to the proper oversight authorities all have a significant impact on how they are perceived. It is also similar in the private sector. There are issues of ownership, non-disclosure agreements signed, and proprietary information. Whistleblowers can run into many pitfalls that could lead to them being subject to civil or criminal penalties. We can help you avoid these situations by helping you navigate those pitfalls as best as we can.
Advertisement
Gizmodo: What are companies' reactions to a whistleblower?
Zaid: It also varies. Zaid: It also varies. It is interesting to see the double-edged sword of whistleblowers. Publicly, both private companies and government have praise for whistleblowers. They can be very persuasive in saying that this is what we want people do. They only want it when it does not involve them. They only want it for someone else. It is there. It is not uncommon for a public or private entity to become extremely defensive. The Jan. 6th committee, you know, it was. I was there for their first hearing. They were representing two whistleblowers, both Capitol Police officers. While I was working with the committee in preparation of these individuals, I learned that their chief staff had retaliated illegally against whistleblowers, including Andrew Bakaj, my former client and current client. Andrew was a whistleblower both at DHS as well as at the CIA. The inspector general concluded that the Jan. 6 committee member had illegally retaliated to Andrew. This is a sad reality, but they are often defensive when they are accused of wrongdoings or missteps. The committee promotes whistleblowers and says, "You should come to me." You won't be retaliated at (even though some of our staff have retaliated to whistleblowers). (
Advertisement
Gizmodo - How important have whistleblowers historically been in exposing corporate misconduct?
Zaid: There is often little oversight of corporate misconduct, because it is difficult to monitor how private companies operate. In many jurisdictions, whistleblowers can be fired easily because it is an at-will employment. There are some protections that are less restrictive, but it is not my field so I cannot speak on them. Whistleblower aid, as you all know, I am responsible for federal cases and national security. Whistleblower Aid is not limited to the U.S. national security system. We also deal with whistleblowers from private parties, as well as international cases. We will hopefully grow to be large enough to deal with whistleblowers at every level, local, state-level, federal, international, or private. This will ensure that they do not have to incur out-of-pocket expenses for doing the right thing and that their career paths can be preserved and saved.
Advertisement
Gizmodo: What made it necessary that Ms. Haugens searched outside of Facebook for help in her case?
Tye: Frances noticed that Facebook employees had attempted to solve some of these issues internally but there was no way to do so within the company. Frances had witnessed many people quit and give up. She understood that lawful disclosure was necessary to obtain her evidence and concerns to law enforcement officials and legislators in order to make a real difference.
Advertisement
Gizmodo: What advice would a person give you to someone who is about to blow the whistle.
Zaid: It is a good idea to find people who have experience in that area before you attempt it. This will ensure you are as safe as possible. Whistleblowering is not something that's fun. Not only does it have an impact on the individual but also their professional and personal lives, but often, it can even extend to their families. You must really want to do it. It is important to be informed about the various options and pathways available. This is often only possible if you have the right people to help you. You can find people who can help you. It is also important to ensure that those who guide you don't have their own agenda. Lawyers have an ethical responsibility to protect their clients' interests. We want our clients to be able to articulate their goals to us, so that we can discuss the realistic nature of these objectives. Sometimes, potential clients are unreasonable and we have to reject them. It is important that we are able to properly represent individuals at the same. We may be passionate about a subject, but we must also ensure that laws are being followed in our country and around the world.
Advertisement
Gizmodo: What can people do to contact your company if they are considering blowing the whistle on you?
Zaid: Whistleblower aid tries to use the most secure and tightest communication methods. You can access the Tor browser by clicking on the link. This ensures that communications are secure as no one can intercept them. For those who are really concerned, there are many additional steps. We don't want anyone to send us any classified information, verbal or document-wise. The system prevents you from sending any documents, so that you can only send text. However, those who are associated with the organization have their own private practice. Anyone can find Andrews or my email address and contact us directly. That's quite common, so they can email us directly.
Advertisement
Gizmodo: Thank you for this. Do you have any other suggestions?
The only thing we would say is that we provide free representation and we depend on donors to fund our organization. It may be individuals or institutions at times, but it is often the same as what we are doing with GoFundMe. There will be many people who make small donations. This helps. It is our goal to pay highly experienced lawyers, who are also incredibly wealthy, a fair amount of money that allows them to take part in these cases, without affecting their regular incomes. We want whistleblowers to not have to pay anything and to be able provide the proper compensation for the experts or lawyers that they need. We rely on the generosity of others to protect lawful whistleblowers. The key word is lawful whistleblowers.
