Facebook has been making the headlines for one controversy or other.
The social media platform is once again in news and the pressure seems to be mounting.
A new whistleblower has come ahead and shared experiences and grievances about Facebook in an exclusive interview with US media house; the Washington Post.
The whistleblower has claimed that Facebook allowed to continue hate speech on the social media platform; even though the experts in the company were well aware about it.
It has been alleged that the tech giant purposely did not enforce proper safety rules during the time of US election 2020; simply because they were afraid it would anger the then-US President Donald Trump and his allies.
Facebook chose to let the hate speech continue to ensure their own growth.
The new whistleblower’s claims have come a few hours; after several US media houses published reports based on the internal documents shared by a former employee of Facebook.
Frances Haugen, a former Facebook product manager had accused the social media platform of prioritising profits over safety of users.
Facebook has been accused of avoiding and knowingly skipping all concerns flagged by employees before and after the US election 2020.
The social media platform kept ignoring warnings; when Donald Trump and his allies were using the platform to share fake news and advance their own propaganda with the aim of overturning election result.
A media house also reported that several internal documents have also highlighted that Facebook’s recommendation tools purposely push users towards extremist groups.
These researchers had also flagged this error to the higher authorities, who chose to ignore the warnings.
However, a Facebook spokesperson; has rubbished the new accusations and has lashed out at the Washington Post for reporting this story.
“This is beneath the Washington Post, which during the last five years would only report stories; after deep reporting with corroborating sources,” Erin McPike; a Facebook spokeswoman. She also added that the media house’s report sets “a dangerous precedent to hang an entire story on a single source making a wide range of claims without any apparent corroboration”.