Facebook would like rules that stop Facebook from helping organize genocides, hit jobs and human trafficking.
Say the former British deputy PM whose moral compass is now owned by the company.
Today, Nicke Clegg, former deputy Prime Minsiter of the United Kingdom and Lord President of the Council in the payroll of Mark Zukerberg has published an opinion piece in the USA Today with a demand that the US establish law to rule over Facebook. Self rule, Clegg has realized, is way to difficult a business.
One would imagine that the man would know that his blatant approach to various price point offers of moral commitments and political loyalties for his various publics and patrons has made his reputation suffer. Not so. To judge by the righteous tone with which he points the finger for Facebook excess to policy circles it seems that his sense of the authoritative ring of his own voice is remains unscathed.
“It’s long past time for Congress to set clear and fair rules. That’s how we’ll make the internet safer, while also ensuring that creativity and competition continue to thrive online.”
The claim is breath-taking. The list of abuses that are now associated with Facebook include aiding mafias and cartels to kill people, aiding human traffickers, organizing genocide, organizing far-right attacks and promoting them, recruitment of terrorists and, of course, adversely affecting the self-image of teen girls in Kansas. It is hard to believe that Mr Clegg or Mark would imagine that blaming anyone but Facebook for this would be a good PR move.
But it is this one the true gem in Clegg’s gohst-writer’s musings:
“We’ve called for Congress to do more to protect against influence operations, by creating deterrence no industry effort can match. Congress could act now to mandate platform transparency, enable lawful information sharing, and impose liability directly on the people and organizations behind malicious influence operations. “
There is only one matter to be considered: Facebook and its many agents should be prevented at all costs from having any part in the writing of the bill, which would presumably be a process designed to elevate their Terms of Service to the status of natioal law.