The Facebook data scientist made the allegations in internal messages supporting Kenosha patriot Kyle Rittenhouse.
BYPASS THE CENSORS
Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.
Last year, Rittenhouse shot and killed two Black Lives Matter terrorists in self-defence during violent riots following the police shooting of Jacob Blake.
Pedophile ‘Code Words’ Found in Hunter Biden’s Leaked Emails
Buffalo Killer’s Goal Was To ‘Remove Gun Rights’ in US
Bill Gates Orders Adults Over 50 To Get ‘Ongoing’ Covid Boosters ‘Every 6 Months’
Hunter Biden Emails Reveal He Fathered Child With ANOTHER Prostitute, Left Her Addicted to Narcotics
Lindsey Graham Caught on Tape Saying Joe Biden Is ‘Best President’
Trudeau’s Canada Will Pay Poor People To Be Euthanized
Video Footage Shows Demon at Pro-Abortion Protest
Ghislaine Elite Pedophiles | Ghislaine Maxwell Vows to ‘Name & Shame’ Elite Pedophiles
Queen Elizabeth Is ‘Direct Descendant Of Prophet Muhammad’ - Study
Pro-Rittenhouse posts were censored by Facebook at the time, which Facebook claimed “violated” their community standards.
The decision to censor conservatives showing their support for Rittenhouse was agreed upon by most employees during an internal discussion.
But one employee argued that Facebook was behaving in an un-American way by censoring conservatives in such a sweeping way.
“Employees are drunk on the absolute power of being in control of civics in America, without ever having to visit a voting booth (if voting is even an option).”
The employee questioned whether Facebook was taking the right approach to moderate posts in support of Rittenhouse.
“Can we really consistently and objectively differentiate between support (not allowed) and discussion of whether [Rittenhouse] is being treated justly (allowed)?” the data scientist asked fellow employees.
“Try reading the posts mentioning him and see if you can separate violating from non-violating content.”
“I know that our company is full of dedicated smart people who want to do the right thing.”
“However, I don’t think the current system we are working in enables us to succeed, even as we have the money, talent, and motivation that should lead us on the right path.”
Nypost.com reports: Yet the dissenter’s response to the data scientist shows that Facebook’s workforce is divided on how active of a role the company should take in regulating speech.
The data scientist’s complaints echo those of whistleblower Frances Haugen and were revealed in disclosures made to the Securities and Exchange Commission and provided to Congress in redacted form by Haugen’s legal counsel.
A consortium of news organizations, including The Post, has obtained the redacted versions received by Congress.
The revelations have led to outrage from policymakers around the world. On Tuesday night, the company reportedly ordered employees to “preserve internal documents and communications since 2016” due to governmental inquiries into the company, the New York Times reported.
Documents leaked by Haugen have also shed light on Instagram’s damaging effects on teen mental health, Facebook’s struggles to crack down on human traffickers who use the site and a slate of other issues.
“As you are probably aware, we’re currently the focus of extensive media coverage based on a swath of internal documents,” Facebook said in the email to employees, according to the paper. “As is often the case following this kind of reporting, a number of inquiries from governments and legislative bodies have been launched into the company’s operations.”
On Monday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg angrily accused whistleblowers and journalists of plotting against the company.
“My view is that what we are seeing is a coordinated effort to selectively use leaked documents to paint a false picture of our company,” Zuckerberg said in a call with Facebook investors.
Facebook didn’t respond specifically to a question from The Post on the employees’ comments on the internal discussion board. A spokeswoman said Facebook has an “industry-leading policy” to address what it called “militarized social movements.”