The post With 75,000+ Meta Employees, Is It News That A Few Are Disgruntled? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. PARIS, FRANCE – OCTOBER 29: In this photo illustration, the Facebook logo is displayed on the screen of an iPhone in front of a Meta logo on October 29, 2021 in Paris, France. On October 28, during the Facebook Connect virtual conference, Mark Zuckerberg announced the name change of Facebook, believing that the term Facebook was too closely linked to that of the platform of the same name, launched in 2004. It is now official, the Facebook company changes its name and becomes Meta. (Photo illustration by Chesnot/Getty Images) Getty Images While long-time New York Times editor Max Frankel “despised the Russians and sided passionately with their victims,” he wondered in his 1999 memoirs why U.S.-based red baters were so eager to credit “the testimony of former communists who now gained fame and fortune by confessing that they had trafficked in American secrets and Soviet lies.” Why indeed. Frankel’s orthogonal look at communism’s loudest critics comes to mind after another Washington Post effort to portray Meta as indifferent to the safety of children using its social media. The Post’s latest investigative report was inspired by “a trove of documents from inside Meta that was recently disclosed to Congress by two current and two former employees who allege that Meta suppressed research that might have illuminated potential safety risks to children and teens on the company’s virtual apps.” The tone of the report raises a question parallel to the one asked by Frankel in the 1950s: if Meta is so ill-intentioned, why is the Post so eager to credit the testimony of two current and two former Meta employees? Considering the two still in Meta’s employ, if we ignore the possibility that the disclosures are an attempt to soften an eventual post-Meta landing, it’s less easy to ignore the nature of… The post With 75,000+ Meta Employees, Is It News That A Few Are Disgruntled? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. PARIS, FRANCE – OCTOBER 29: In this photo illustration, the Facebook logo is displayed on the screen of an iPhone in front of a Meta logo on October 29, 2021 in Paris, France. On October 28, during the Facebook Connect virtual conference, Mark Zuckerberg announced the name change of Facebook, believing that the term Facebook was too closely linked to that of the platform of the same name, launched in 2004. It is now official, the Facebook company changes its name and becomes Meta. (Photo illustration by Chesnot/Getty Images) Getty Images While long-time New York Times editor Max Frankel “despised the Russians and sided passionately with their victims,” he wondered in his 1999 memoirs why U.S.-based red baters were so eager to credit “the testimony of former communists who now gained fame and fortune by confessing that they had trafficked in American secrets and Soviet lies.” Why indeed. Frankel’s orthogonal look at communism’s loudest critics comes to mind after another Washington Post effort to portray Meta as indifferent to the safety of children using its social media. The Post’s latest investigative report was inspired by “a trove of documents from inside Meta that was recently disclosed to Congress by two current and two former employees who allege that Meta suppressed research that might have illuminated potential safety risks to children and teens on the company’s virtual apps.” The tone of the report raises a question parallel to the one asked by Frankel in the 1950s: if Meta is so ill-intentioned, why is the Post so eager to credit the testimony of two current and two former Meta employees? Considering the two still in Meta’s employ, if we ignore the possibility that the disclosures are an attempt to soften an eventual post-Meta landing, it’s less easy to ignore the nature of…

With 75,000+ Meta Employees, Is It News That A Few Are Disgruntled?

PARIS, FRANCE – OCTOBER 29: In this photo illustration, the Facebook logo is displayed on the screen of an iPhone in front of a Meta logo on October 29, 2021 in Paris, France. On October 28, during the Facebook Connect virtual conference, Mark Zuckerberg announced the name change of Facebook, believing that the term Facebook was too closely linked to that of the platform of the same name, launched in 2004. It is now official, the Facebook company changes its name and becomes Meta. (Photo illustration by Chesnot/Getty Images)

Getty Images

While long-time New York Times editor Max Frankel “despised the Russians and sided passionately with their victims,” he wondered in his 1999 memoirs why U.S.-based red baters were so eager to credit “the testimony of former communists who now gained fame and fortune by confessing that they had trafficked in American secrets and Soviet lies.” Why indeed.

Frankel’s orthogonal look at communism’s loudest critics comes to mind after another Washington Post effort to portray Meta as indifferent to the safety of children using its social media. The Posts latest investigative report was inspired by “a trove of documents from inside Meta that was recently disclosed to Congress by two current and two former employees who allege that Meta suppressed research that might have illuminated potential safety risks to children and teens on the company’s virtual apps.”

The tone of the report raises a question parallel to the one asked by Frankel in the 1950s: if Meta is so ill-intentioned, why is the Post so eager to credit the testimony of two current and two former Meta employees? Considering the two still in Meta’s employ, if we ignore the possibility that the disclosures are an attempt to soften an eventual post-Meta landing, it’s less easy to ignore the nature of their actions while still receiving paychecks from the same corporation they’re trying to besmirch.

From there, it’s worth pointing out that while the Post is basing its allegations (denied by Meta) on the disclosures of four individuals, Meta can presently claim roughly 75, 945 employees. Contemplate the previous number while considering the revelations of two existing and two former employees. That there would be four, and likely many more employees unhappy with how the company operates is no insight. In basketball and football it’s nearly impossible for the best coaches to keep 15 and 53 players happy and committed to the bigger cause, but investigators at the Post expect Meta’s C-suite to keep 75,000+ employees happy?

Furthermore, it’s difficult to credit the Post with any truly material discoveries. It’s once again suggested that Meta “suppressed research that might have illuminated potential safety risks to children and teens,” except for the inconvenient truth that Meta has long gone out of its way to provide parents with all manner of ways to limit child and teen access to its various social media offerings, along with time spent on same. That Meta makes such an effort isn’t evidence of a corporation in denial, but instead one that recognizes the risks involved to younger users, and that is expending enormous resources to help parents mitigate those same risks.

At one point in the article it’s said that Meta executives were aware that young people were migrating online to where they shouldn’t, but to implicate Meta there is the equivalent of criticizing movie theaters, liquor companies, and carmakers for knowing that young people are occasionally seeing, drinking, and driving what they shouldn’t. Naturally young people are going to break a few rules, but that’s hardly something Meta can or should be expected to control from Menlo Park.

It yet again brings Frankel to mind, and his further mystification that “loyalty oaths” extracted from federal employees would somehow cause the spies in the government’s employ to cease their nefarious activities. It wasn’t a serious view then, and it’s not serious now for investigative journalists to expect all users of Meta’s suite of products to abide any and all usage rules put in place. All Meta can do is help parents protect their children, which is what it’s already doing.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2025/09/12/with-75000-employees-at-meta-is-it-news-that-a-few-are-disgruntled/

Market Opportunity
Union Logo
Union Price(U)
$0.00271
$0.00271$0.00271
+11.93%
USD
Union (U) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

WhiteWhale Meme Coin Crashes 60% in Minutes After Major Token Dump

WhiteWhale Meme Coin Crashes 60% in Minutes After Major Token Dump

The post WhiteWhale Meme Coin Crashes 60% in Minutes After Major Token Dump appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. A Solana-based meme coin called WhiteWhale suffered
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/01/20 19:33
Will Elon Musk buy this company next?

Will Elon Musk buy this company next?

The post Will Elon Musk buy this company next? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Elon Musk’s latest exchange on X with a budget airline company had the appearance
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/01/20 18:46
UK Looks to US to Adopt More Crypto-Friendly Approach

UK Looks to US to Adopt More Crypto-Friendly Approach

The post UK Looks to US to Adopt More Crypto-Friendly Approach appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The UK and US are reportedly preparing to deepen cooperation on digital assets, with Britain looking to copy the Trump administration’s crypto-friendly stance in a bid to boost innovation.  UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves and US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent discussed on Tuesday how the two nations could strengthen their coordination on crypto, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday, citing people familiar with the matter.  The discussions also involved representatives from crypto companies, including Coinbase, Circle Internet Group and Ripple, with executives from the Bank of America, Barclays and Citi also attending, according to the report. The agreement was made “last-minute” after crypto advocacy groups urged the UK government on Thursday to adopt a more open stance toward the industry, claiming its cautious approach to the sector has left the country lagging in innovation and policy.  Source: Rachel Reeves Deal to include stablecoins, look to unlock adoption Any deal between the countries is likely to include stablecoins, the Financial Times reported, an area of crypto that US President Donald Trump made a policy priority and in which his family has significant business interests. The Financial Times reported on Monday that UK crypto advocacy groups also slammed the Bank of England’s proposal to limit individual stablecoin holdings to between 10,000 British pounds ($13,650) and 20,000 pounds ($27,300), claiming it would be difficult and expensive to implement. UK banks appear to have slowed adoption too, with around 40% of 2,000 recently surveyed crypto investors saying that their banks had either blocked or delayed a payment to a crypto provider.  Many of these actions have been linked to concerns over volatility, fraud and scams. The UK has made some progress on crypto regulation recently, proposing a framework in May that would see crypto exchanges, dealers, and agents treated similarly to traditional finance firms, with…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 02:21