Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/5/22711182/facebook-whistleblower-smear-pr-response

255 146 5 years ago

"If the best Facebook can come up with is this disgusting attempt at character assassination, Haugen is telling God’s own truth. We should listen to her."

A pretty powerful closing statement IMHO.

whatshisface6• 5 years ago

Facebook PR: “Today a Senate Commerce subcommittee held a hearing with a former product manager at Facebook who worked for the company for less than two years, had no direct reports, never attended a decision-point meeting with C-level executives — and testified more than six times to not working on the subject matter in question.”

This doesn't sound like character assassination, it's Facebook claiming that she wasn't informed enough. It would be like the NSA telling us not to listen to Snowden because he didn't actually work on the programs that he obtained documents about.

chalst• 5 years ago

Character assassination is not done in one press release. It's done in a campaign of PRs and cossetting friendly journalists and newspapers.

Perhaps it's premature to call it character assassination, but we've seen this play out quite a few times.

compscistd• 5 years ago

It’s a rather unconvincing but mean way to discount someone. If anything, FB saying how unrelated she is to these problems absolves her of being a part of it. Focus on the documents.

Despite that, not everyone has the will to connect these dots.

melvinmt• 5 years ago

Sounds to me this type of language can also backfire; next step of Congress could be to then subpoena someone who did work on the subject matter and did have C-level exec access...

rustymonday• 5 years ago

You're not wrong. But Facebook's attempt to discredit Frances Haugen is poor.

From the congressional hearing today, she did not answer questions beyond her expertise [1], and she had over a decade of relevant experience in Engagement Based Ranking algorithms [2], which was largely the focus of the hearing.

[1] https://youtu.be/GoSPmqqKams?t=4160

[2] https://youtu.be/GoSPmqqKams?t=3482

adolph8• 5 years ago

"telling God’s own truth"

Tremendously convincing.

amelius2• 5 years ago

As opposed to alternative truths.

_3u103• 5 years ago

If God is for us, who could be against us?

BitwiseFool4• 5 years ago

What a heavily editorialized statement for something that isn't marked as opinion. The whole article reeks of being written by someone who literally hates Facebook.

And the use of the term "God's own truth" feels like a really underhanded and unjustified rhetorical trick. To use a analogy, It feels like they are declaring a winner during the opening argument of the prosecution, before the defense has even had a chance to fully respond: "If Facebook had evidence, it would show it." Doesn't the author realize that kind of counter evidence will come later?

commandlinefan• 5 years ago

someone who literally hates Facebook

No, the author doesn't hate Facebook, nor does the "whistleblower". This isn't being drive by hate, it's being driven by love: love of government-mandated censorship. They're not alone, either, Zuckerberg himself is a huge fan; that's why his pushback here was so weak. Facebook was running TV commercials last summer calling for tighter legal restriction on social media.

amelius2• 5 years ago

Sounds more like a logical fallacy.

spfzero• 5 years ago

What she's telling, or not telling, is irrelevant, and indeed, partly because she has little experience at FB and not in a position that would make her privy to nefarious plots.

What is relevant, is the documents, which are not being released in full. Only after they are will we see the full picture, so anything happening before that is just manufactured narrative to serve someone's purpose.

cpr• 5 years ago

I'm sure what she's saying is only part of the evil that Facebook represents, but there's something fishy about the whole setup.

Why is she getting full media coverage and support, when previous whistleblowers were roundly ignored?

She's a very wealthy person (1B estimated), so perhaps she's fairly well insulated from any blowback?

But again, why is now the time to pile on Facebook, and why this person?

[edit] Hint: She's in fact calling for more censorship of the views she doesn't like.

[edit] Greenwald nails it (just published): https://greenwald.substack.com/p/democrats-and-media-do-not-...

buitreVirtual• 5 years ago

It's called a tipping point. Previous critics made similar denunciations, but most people and even the media just shrugged and pretended nothing bad was happening. It takes time for society to acknowledge inconvenient truths. Plus, here, Haugen provided a wealth of documentation.

leahbarton• 5 years ago

What's your source on her wealth? I'm only finding second hand sources stating up to 5 million...

dntrkv• 5 years ago

There is no source because nobody under the C-level is worth anywhere close to that much.

burkaman2• 5 years ago

I believe they searched "frances haugen net worth" and then copied from this extremely reputable source: https://primalinformation.com/frances-haugen-wiki-net-worth/

keewee72• 5 years ago

She founded Hinge that was bought by Match Group for $2 billion.

Update: There is no verifiable information about her stake in the company.

saulpw• 5 years ago

It's based on her co-founding Hinge, which apparently is now worth $2b. Hinge had sold 100% of shares by 2019, so she might have done well for herself, but definitely not 50% of current valuation.

whatshisface6• 5 years ago

Here are some points I notice about this whole thing:

- Facebook has stated (in the press release the article is reporting on) that they support regulation. This is typical for large market incumbents, who have been said to always support fixed-overhead regulation, because it hurts smaller competitors more than it hurts them.

- Washington loves regulating things and can be safely assumed to be pro-policy in most cases. More to the point, incumbents today are far more concerned about the possibility of being blindsided in their campaigns by maneuvers on a platform their own team doesn't know how to work with, than they are about the difficult to quantify pros and cons of balancing antitrust and libertarian policy. You'd expect them to be pro-regulation on average, if it reduces the importance of the internet in running campaigns.

- The public is not presently pro-regulation and nobody really knows what form the regulations should take.

So in a nutshell, everyone who's powerful in this situation wants the same outcome, and all that is left is to convince the public to support a bill which will probably be titled something like "Cyberspeech Freedom Act of 2022." Lobbyists may have already drafted it, and we can expect that well-meaning activists will be swept along by the push and end up supporting something they wouldn't like if they fully understood what it was.

Hokusai• 5 years ago

The public is not presently pro-regulation

I guess that this is true for the USA. But Facebook is a global company and other countries may be more regulation friendly.

shadilay• 5 years ago

This seems to be a case of tech monopolies usurping power from the traditional power brokers who are now pushing back demanding to be put in charge again.

busterarm4• 5 years ago

100% share your take on the subject.

Additionally, reading the whistleblower's account and her opinions/goals struck me as an incredibly naive way of thinking...although I think she may be genuine (she's my age and I have many peers like her).

What kind of organization respects the value of complete top-down organizational change initiated by rank and file members of the company? Who would think an organization would give them that kind of power? The role that she was hired for seems destined to give her no resources to accomplish the stated goals; we saw something similar but on a much smaller scale with Basecamp.

I know a lot of my peers believe in the power to make sweeping organizational changes like that, but it's "fucking with other peoples' money". To me the whole situation seems like the setup to a bad joke.

Facebook doesn't have to do much to smear her in my eyes because she already strikes me as a ridiculous person. That said, Facebook is similarly ridiculous for hiring people with causes in direct opposition to how they do business and giving everyone in the company unfettered access to damaging internal information.

FFRefresh• 5 years ago

Nice analysis. I'm certainly not suggesting that this is a coordinated campaign by FB without evidence to suggest it, but the net result of these viral news events could be FB getting the regulation that they want.

If one did want to coordinate such a campaign, there's a certain society-wide informational/narrative vulnerability that makes such a campaign potentially attractive:

-You have a public who loves latching onto 'good vs evil', 'david vs goliath' stories, and in this meta-narrative, we the public shall vanquish the evil goliath by any means necessary!

-We also have a public who at large isn't terribly interested in questioning their own biases, thinking through the higher abstract principles at play, thinking through externalities from vanquishing said evil, and in general going against the grain in these 'good vs evil' battles

-You have a news media environment who profits off such engaging meta-narratives and stories, and is more than willing to push these stories out into the public

-The companies and their employees in the news media environment also have their own in-house biases against certain 'villians' such as FB, which further incentives the spread of such stories and meta-narratives. FB has been a competitive threat to media companies. FB has also done or been accused of things which have frustrated media employees of all political persuasions.

FB is a perfect villian in this meta-narrative, regardless of any of the facts at play. They know it too.

2OEH8eoCRo02• 5 years ago

because it hurts smaller competitors more than it hurts them

Is this always true? I always thought that these companies do want to fix themselves but fixing yourself when your competition won't means that you lose. Regulation helps force everyone to fix themselves.

kwertyoowiyop• 5 years ago

It’s laughable for Facebook to point at Congress now and say it’s their fault for not acting, when they know darn well that if there’s one thing Congress is incapable of doing, it’s “acting.”

smoldesu• 5 years ago

The Hacker News crowd doesn't like to hear this, but it's definitely looking like the case as each day passes. If everything we know about domestic surveillance and PRISM is true, the path of least resistance would be to ratify their control. I can hear a lot of "so whats" in the audience, but this would be unprecedented. The United States would now be able to advance their control over the global internet with total impunity, and the results... are harrowing to imagine.

SquishyPanda23• 5 years ago

The public is not presently pro-regulation and nobody really knows what form the regulations should take.

A majority of Americans support regulation of big tech https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/20/56-of-ameri...

orzig• 5 years ago

Citation majorly needed on "1B estimated"

jcomis• 5 years ago

They are a cofounder of the dating app "Hinge". No idea where the "1B estimated" comes from at all however.

AlbertCory• 5 years ago

There are very few billionaires. Who "estimated" this? Based on what?

BitwiseFool4• 5 years ago

I'm paraphrasing a similar comment I made on a different thread, but this whole situation seems fishy to me...

Out of the blue some larger-than-life person (with impeccable credentials, no less) comes out of the woodwork and is lauded with attention while the big news outlets make this massive push against Facebook, all while congress is holding hearings about regulating social media. Then a massive outage happens at Facebook right after the New York Times published an article titled "Facebook Is Weaker Than We Knew." (This could honestly just be atrocious luck and an incredible coincidence.)

This woman is also remarkably calm, well-spoken, knowledgeable, and articulate for someone testifying before the Senate for the very first time - all while being broadcast around the globe, live on television. Perhaps she's simply a natural, but I sense she received some coaching and preparation beforehand. Combine that with how well she is being received by senators from both parties and you start to wonder just how much of this was orchestrated in advance.

ceejayoz11• 5 years ago

Perhaps she's simply a natural, but I sense she received some coaching and preparation beforehand.

So?

Do you think Zuckerberg doesn't get coaching and preparation before his hearing appearances?

keewee72• 5 years ago

I mean it's pretty obvious why they're targeting Facebook and not the other big Internet companies.

Facebook is the only one still allowing far-right speech on their platform. That is why the Democrats are going after them.

ihasdofijqwer2• 5 years ago

This woman is also remarkably calm, well-spoken, knowledgeable, and articulate for someone testifying before the Senate for the very first time - all while being broadcast around the globe, live on television.

But what if the reason she is being heared is because she is remarkably calm, well-spoken, knowledgeable and articulate? Should that theory not be tested first accoring to Occams razor? [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

hedgehog• 5 years ago

Career big tech product manager, Harvard MBA, knowing she was going to be testifying to congress, the press, and maybe a jury? Of course she's prepared, it would be really surprising if she wasn't.

etchalon4• 5 years ago

"This person seems too credible, thus they must not be credible" is a hell of a take.

etchalon4• 5 years ago

This is nonsense.

She's receiving a large press and Congressional focus because she's testifying about harm to children.

Not political censorship, perceived bias, or internal politics.

It's a cleaner story.

Greenwald, like all politicians, is twisting the story to meet his narrative. He doesn't "nail it". He's just regurgitating his preferred talking point, and ignoring her actual testimony.

thrill• 5 years ago

How dare Facebook try to defend itself against public accusations.

fireball_blaze3• 5 years ago

The point the author is making is that the rebuttal has very little substance. The signal to noise ratio is low.

falcolas2• 5 years ago

As the article pointed out, they didn't defend themselves. They simply attempted to discredit the whistleblower, and change the subject.

Let them defend themselves without character assassination, please.

rPlayer6554• 5 years ago

Facebook PR: “Today a Senate Commerce subcommittee held a hearing with a former product manager at Facebook who worked for the company for less than two years, had no direct reports, never attended a decision-point meeting with C-level executives — and testified more than six times to not working on the subject matter in question.”

Where does it mention her character??

bovermyer• 5 years ago

Facebook's "defense" is not a defense at all, but a misdirection.

While this article uses some pretty sensational language, it does accurately describe Facebook's response to Haugen's revelations.

xmprt• 5 years ago

Facebook's defense is like if someone accuses me of stealing something from a store and then I say the accuser has no security experience and was only in the store for 10 minutes.

0235005• 5 years ago

Facebook is staring to show some really bad cracks. I think they should start checking their PR a bit more because if they follow this path, they could have congress in their neck for some time.

whatshisface6• 5 years ago

Has anyone got the documents themselves, or only reporter's descriptions of the documents?

adolph8• 5 years ago

Yes. At this point in the world we need not take anyone's word for what a corpus says or does not say. Either the data, query, and processing exist and are documented or they may as well be making things up.

Public forkable repo or gtfo.

josephg• 5 years ago

Facebook would fight tooth and nail to get those documents removed if they show up on GitHub. They’d win, too - since they own copyright.

lukasb• 5 years ago

My guess is they're using the same strategy as the Snowden leaks - drop a new bombshell at regular intervals through the media, then eventually open source the whole thing. The idea is the maximize the impact of the leaks, not to hide anything (of course, you can disagree about whether it actually does maximize the impact.)

boomboomsubban4• 5 years ago

This may be part of their plan, but Snowden used that method for the purpose of hiding things too. He wanted reports about the various software projects being used to be public, he didn't want the software itself to be public.

Vetting data over dumping everything often has benefits.

pixl97• 5 years ago

Not only does it maximize the impact of the leaks, now those defending themselves against the leaks must be very careful not to create a new set of lies that could be disproved by further leaks.

As a hypothetical

FB: we only did that once!

Leaker: in fact you did that many times (shows papers)

travoc• 5 years ago

Snippets of the source documents are presented in the WSJ Facebook stories that preceded the naming of the whistleblower. They are paywalled here, but you might be able to find the stories on certain archive sites.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039

jaywalk• 5 years ago

It's tough to call Facebook's response a "smear" or "disgusting attempt at character assassination" since it didn't address her character at all. It certainly does attempt to discredit her, and it is cowardly and ultimately doesn't address the issues she brought up. But the author of this article is a bit hyperbolic.

klelatti2• 5 years ago

Top comment from the FT (paraphrased somewhat)

If this is all that your comms department can get through legal, you know what’s being said is almost 100% true.

koboll2• 5 years ago

Okay, so Facebook has said she

- worked there for less than two years and had no direct reports

- never attended some sort of key meeting

- did not work on the subject matter in question

...and therefore, she lacks context which undermines some of her claims.

Which of those is a matter of character, or a "disgusting" attack? They might be wrong, or they might be right but bringing up irrelevancies, but the writer is acting like stating these is some sort of reprehensible smear.

fireball_blaze3• 5 years ago

Some of those could also be said of Snowden, but he found some impactful, explosive material.

iammisc6• 5 years ago

Snowden advocated in favor of the government following their own law (not spying on people without judicially issued warrants). This 'whistleblower' is asking the government to violate their own law (the first amendment) by banning individual speech on these platforms.

EDIT: Honestly, I could care less about facebook. Although I think Mark Zuckerberg should be in jail (look at the allegations that his company knowingly experimented on people without their consent), individuals should have the ability to publish on the platform. If bakers must bake cakes, this is only fair.

klelatti2• 5 years ago

They are trying to undermine her credibility - to say she wasn't important, that she doesn't really understand - whether it's a smear is borderline but it seems a pretty poor response to me.

lostmsu• 5 years ago

That's assuming this is their only "defense". Was it though?

Barrin922• 5 years ago

because they're not even attempting to refute anything she says, which the Verge article points out. If you're going to try to smear someone by attacking their lack of experience it would probably make sense to point out how that lack of experience manifests itself in errors in her judgement.

Of course they cannot do that because she is literally citing their own words. Which is why this is just a thinly veiled, pathetic attack on a worker.

caminante2• 5 years ago

If you're going to try to smear someone by attacking their lack of experience

Re-read the parent comment. How is the whistleblower getting smeared based on the assertions above? Are they not factual AND relevant?

edit:

I see comments below talking past this sub-thread. Let's get down to definitions.

Smear: damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.

At best, the article's premise that FB's claims "smear" the whistleblower is flawed and non-constructive even if you're seeking to slit FB's throat.

koboll2• 5 years ago

because they're not even attempting to refute anything she says

Yes. So they're right but bringing up irrelevancies. It's a diversionary tactic, no doubt. But it's not a "smear".

cratermoon4• 5 years ago

The goal is to divert discussion from the issue and make the discussion about her personality. The "disgusting" part is not what Facebook says about her (their folks clearly don't have much to smear Haugen with if this is the worst), it's that they don't want to address the allegations directly. The "smear" such as it is, falls flat, but it's reprehensible for Facebook's people to want to make the discussion about her rather than about the practices of the company that employed her.

true_religion• 5 years ago

If she were in a visible position where she'd have learned this information, the people in PR could easily look up what projects she was on them come up with a targeted response disclosing only those facts.

However, since she didn't work on anything relevant, they have to do research without any guidance.

It's Day 1. They can't come out and say "we don't know what she's talking about or where she got her data, so we can't refute it."

As PR, the worst thing for them to do is deny something only to be hit by factual evidence; they'd rather know all the evidence to begin with them try to put it in a good light or reveal a good reason for things being that way.

dnissley• 5 years ago

It's typical for Vox reporting (parent company of the Verge) -- but also typical for pretty much any vaguely left leaning publication (see also nytimes). They seek out the most populist angle on every story, regardless of how eyerollingly absurd it is. See: https://www.city-journal.org/journalism-advocacy-over-report...

scotuswroteus4• 5 years ago

OK, you're responding to the fact that Facebook is saying things that are not disgusting about the whistleblower, who revealed really important information that Facebook is doing reprehensible things that threaten the long term sustainability of the democratic political systems currently in place.

What about your focus on the word "disgusting" is worth resolving BEFORE we get to the threat to the long term sustainability of the democratic political systems currently in place?

tapatio• 5 years ago

I recommend you study logical fallacies.

xqcgrek22• 5 years ago

The smear here is actually against Facebook. The whistleblower is clearly being boosted by Democratic operatives [1] and appeared in front of Congress the day after 60 minutes.

[1] Jen Psaki's former employer https://www.dailywire.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-leftis...

etchalon4• 5 years ago

Yes, the smear is against Facebook, and not the person releasing internal research from Facebook itself, that was not written by the whistleblower.

And obviously, discounting someone presenting factual evidence that at the moment is unchallenged based on perceived personal politics is fair game, reasonable, and the measure of good faith discussion.

mthoms2• 5 years ago

Wow. That was some hit piece. Nothing was spared — They even managed to "casually" reveal her sexuality. For some reason.

Absolutely disgusting. I can't believe intelligent people read, let alone cite, this Enquirer-level garbage.

listless• 5 years ago

Ok yes. But lots of things are true here 1) that’s a hit piece and 2) Francis is all about Francis and 3) Facebook is an awful company.

ryandrake• 5 years ago

I always liked Edward R. Murrow's response to Senator McCarthy's attempt to smear him: "Since he made no reference to any statements of fact that we made, we must conclude that he found no errors of fact."

1: https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/edwardrmurrowtomcc...

cratermoon4• 5 years ago

Murrow really was a treasure.

prox• 5 years ago

Brilliant. Ever since watching “good night, and good luck” Edward R Murrow has been a favorite.

dado3212• 5 years ago

I think they're also saying that there's issues of fact?

scotuswroteus4• 5 years ago

cite em

fleddr3• 5 years ago

Not seeing any "character assassination" in any of the quotes. None of Facebook's defense lines, low quality as they may be, seem overly personal.

For the record, I fully side with the whistleblower's claims. It's just that this article is very emotional, and could have been so much more. This is a fascinating quote the author failed to address fully:

"Facebook PR: “Despite all this, we agree on one thing; it’s time to begin to create standard rules for the internet. 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."

Facebook has a point here. We don't even know what Facebook is. A media company? A news organization? A shop? A dating site? And if it does all of these things, and does so at planetary scale, is has the potential to do harm to big parts of the world, in countless ways. Yet there's pretty much zero rules.

I think we vastly underestimate how complicated the balancing act is. If Instagram does mental harm to teenage girls, whilst this very likely was not the original intent, what exactly is the "correct" course of action, in a way codified in law? Should it be forbidden for other girls (influencers) to broadcast their beauty lifestyle? Should there be a maximum time cap for consumers to browse the feed? The China way? Should influencers just be deplatformed if we don't like them, taking away their income?

None of these rules or laws seem very plausible or sane to me, and this is just one example of how Facebook can do harm.

Anyway, to end constructively, I'd say a first step is to force Facebook to give full access to its underlying (anonymized) data. If we've created a planetary-scale monster, we should treat it as a special case.

fleddr3• 5 years ago

I forgot to add one important part: guess which company will be uniquely capable to comply with whatever regulation comes up with?

You guessed correctly.

Guess whom can't comply? Indeed, everybody else. That's why they welcome regulation.

cherrycherry98• 5 years ago

Mark Zuckerberg has been pushing for regulation for years. He wants this for two reasons:

1. Abdicating responsibility so that when the public or politicians complain about Facebook hosting or not hosting some content he can say it's not his problem, he follows the law.

2. The second is for regulatory capture. Once a social network gets a stigma of being uncool, people move on to the next thing. His status and net worth are tied up in an entity he must aggressively defend against becoming the next MySpace. If he can't buy out upstarts anymore because of antitrust then the next best protection is to make it so difficult to build a new network without a team of lawyers and moderators that no one would even think about doing it.

fleddr3• 5 years ago

Good points. I violently agree that regulation favors Big Tech, instead of harm them.

But I still believe there's a category of societal issues that are extremely hard to codify into rules, even if Facebook would be morally sound. It would still be hard or impossible.

adolph8• 5 years ago

Abdicating responsibility

Is it avoidance or asking for a democratic process to provide guidance? For example, yes automakers did push for a lot of rulemaking that cemented the car's position in transportation and yes a rule about driving on the left or right side is better decided by the community of drivers represented by their government, not GM alone.

scotuswroteus4• 5 years ago

Mark Zuckerberg has also been opposing regulation for years, which means you need to qualify your statement: Mark Zuckerberg has been pushing for his preferred regulation as the only regulation, for years. That's nice. Me too. Neither serves the country.

angelzen• 5 years ago

We don't even know what Facebook is. A media company? A news organization? A shop? A dating site?

Facebook is an entity that controls the information flow reaching its users and shapes it in the interest of the highest bidder.

zozin• 5 years ago

This is what passes for journalism these days? This reads like a snarky blog or Reddit post than an article. I’m surprised a few Zuckerberg memes weren’t included. I say this as someone who wants Facebook broken up or highly regulated.

decebalus1• 5 years ago

Reading hacker news comments today, I found out that:

1. this is fishy

2. she is a political operative for the dems

3. she has a liberal bias therefore this is all fishy and she cannot be trusted

4. she is rich and has some backing so she is definitely a political operative. This one is especially true because if she was poor Facebook would have been SLAPPed her already into shutting up. So there's no winning here.

5. (US) adults are responsible enough for the government to not have to regulate social media. Let's conveniently temporarily forget about the Rohingya minority.

6. Facebook is a net positive for civilization

7. nothing is actually whistleblown, we already knew all that. Therefore, we're ok with it and we should ignore this. Also see 1.

8. We're dealing with Schrödinger's censorship. Conservative voices are being censored on Facebook which is ran by 'libs' and at the same time they're not censored as the government (also libs) prepares to censor them. Or censor them more? Who knows anymore. TLDR they're going to be censored.

9. the staple of 'tech companies' is discussed all over the place as someone is talking to congress about its internal workings so the news is all over HN. Super fishy (see 1) so definitely a hit piece. If there was only one or two links it would probably be fine. But so many links may definitely be the hand of some lib political operative. Or not? Who knows? We're just saying that to muddy the waters. Big if true!

I think I'm going to be taking a break from forums in general. Either some Facebook friendly PR machine got activated or the collective mind has been poisoned by years and years of misinformation and generally sowing mistrust to the point of 'everything is a conspiracy and nothing is real'.

waynesonfire• 5 years ago

Social media legislation will just benefit fb since it'll ultimately cripple every social competitor.

ai_ja_nai• 5 years ago

FYI, the official reply: https://about.fb.com/news/2021/09/research-teen-well-being-a...

Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

Related Stories