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)
$0.002558
$0.002558$0.002558
-6.43%
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 [email protected] 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

Crucial Fed Rate Cut: October Probability Surges to 94%

Crucial Fed Rate Cut: October Probability Surges to 94%

BitcoinWorld Crucial Fed Rate Cut: October Probability Surges to 94% The financial world is buzzing with a significant development: the probability of a Fed rate cut in October has just seen a dramatic increase. This isn’t just a minor shift; it’s a monumental change that could ripple through global markets, including the dynamic cryptocurrency space. For anyone tracking economic indicators and their impact on investments, this update from the U.S. interest rate futures market is absolutely crucial. What Just Happened? Unpacking the FOMC Statement’s Impact Following the latest Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) statement, market sentiment has decisively shifted. Before the announcement, the U.S. interest rate futures market had priced in a 71.6% chance of an October rate cut. However, after the statement, this figure surged to an astounding 94%. This jump indicates that traders and analysts are now overwhelmingly confident that the Federal Reserve will lower interest rates next month. Such a high probability suggests a strong consensus emerging from the Fed’s latest communications and economic outlook. A Fed rate cut typically means cheaper borrowing costs for businesses and consumers, which can stimulate economic activity. But what does this really signify for investors, especially those in the digital asset realm? Why is a Fed Rate Cut So Significant for Markets? When the Federal Reserve adjusts interest rates, it sends powerful signals across the entire financial ecosystem. A rate cut generally implies a more accommodative monetary policy, often enacted to boost economic growth or combat deflationary pressures. Impact on Traditional Markets: Stocks: Lower interest rates can make borrowing cheaper for companies, potentially boosting earnings and making stocks more attractive compared to bonds. Bonds: Existing bonds with higher yields might become more valuable, but new bonds will likely offer lower returns. Dollar Strength: A rate cut can weaken the U.S. dollar, making exports cheaper and potentially benefiting multinational corporations. Potential for Cryptocurrency Markets: The cryptocurrency market, while often seen as uncorrelated, can still react significantly to macro-economic shifts. A Fed rate cut could be interpreted as: Increased Risk Appetite: With traditional investments offering lower returns, investors might seek higher-yielding or more volatile assets like cryptocurrencies. Inflation Hedge Narrative: If rate cuts are perceived as a precursor to inflation, assets like Bitcoin, often dubbed “digital gold,” could gain traction as an inflation hedge. Liquidity Influx: A more accommodative monetary environment generally means more liquidity in the financial system, some of which could flow into digital assets. Looking Ahead: What Could This Mean for Your Portfolio? While the 94% probability for a Fed rate cut in October is compelling, it’s essential to consider the nuances. Market probabilities can shift, and the Fed’s ultimate decision will depend on incoming economic data. Actionable Insights: Stay Informed: Continue to monitor economic reports, inflation data, and future Fed statements. Diversify: A diversified portfolio can help mitigate risks associated with sudden market shifts. Assess Risk Tolerance: Understand how a potential rate cut might affect your specific investments and adjust your strategy accordingly. This increased likelihood of a Fed rate cut presents both opportunities and challenges. It underscores the interconnectedness of traditional finance and the emerging digital asset space. Investors should remain vigilant and prepared for potential volatility. The financial landscape is always evolving, and the significant surge in the probability of an October Fed rate cut is a clear signal of impending change. From stimulating economic growth to potentially fueling interest in digital assets, the implications are vast. Staying informed and strategically positioned will be key as we approach this crucial decision point. The market is now almost certain of a rate cut, and understanding its potential ripple effects is paramount for every investor. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Q1: What is the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)? A1: The FOMC is the monetary policymaking body of the Federal Reserve System. It sets the federal funds rate, which influences other interest rates and economic conditions. Q2: How does a Fed rate cut impact the U.S. dollar? A2: A rate cut typically makes the U.S. dollar less attractive to foreign investors seeking higher returns, potentially leading to a weakening of the dollar against other currencies. Q3: Why might a Fed rate cut be good for cryptocurrency? A3: Lower interest rates can reduce the appeal of traditional investments, encouraging investors to seek higher returns in alternative assets like cryptocurrencies. It can also be seen as a sign of increased liquidity or potential inflation, benefiting assets like Bitcoin. Q4: Is a 94% probability a guarantee of a rate cut? A4: While a 94% probability is very high, it is not a guarantee. Market probabilities reflect current sentiment and data, but the Federal Reserve’s final decision will depend on all available economic information leading up to their meeting. Q5: What should investors do in response to this news? A5: Investors should stay informed about economic developments, review their portfolio diversification, and assess their risk tolerance. Consider how potential changes in interest rates might affect different asset classes and adjust strategies as needed. Did you find this analysis helpful? Share this article with your network to keep others informed about the potential impact of the upcoming Fed rate cut and its implications for the financial markets! To learn more about the latest crypto market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping Bitcoin price action. This post Crucial Fed Rate Cut: October Probability Surges to 94% first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
Share
Coinstats2025/09/18 02:25
Jett Nisay, endorser of Marcos impeach complaint, is a public works contractor

Jett Nisay, endorser of Marcos impeach complaint, is a public works contractor

Nisay is also among the 215 lawmakers who backed Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment in 2025
Share
Rappler2026/01/19 11:06
Trump's Greenland Acquisition Odds Swell On Crypto Prediction Market In 2026 As Dispute Grows Into Potential US-EU Flashpoint

Trump's Greenland Acquisition Odds Swell On Crypto Prediction Market In 2026 As Dispute Grows Into Potential US-EU Flashpoint

The odds that the U.S. takes control of Greenland have spiked on prediction markets since the year began as President Donald Trump intensifies push to annex the
Share
Coinstats2026/01/19 11:06