Facebook Bars Content Claiming To Name Impeachment Whistleblower

The transcript discusses the controversy surrounding the naming of an anonymous whistleblower involved in an impeachment inquiry. It highlights actions taken by Breitbart, Facebook, and YouTube in response to the situation. Facebook and YouTube have decided to remove content that mentions the whistleblower's name to protect their identity and ensure the integrity of the whistleblower system. Legal and ethical concerns are raised about the potential harm to the whistleblower and their family.

What action did Facebook take in response to Breitbart's articles?

• They ignored the articles.

• They promoted the articles.

• They shared the articles widely.

• They blocked users from viewing the post.

Under what condition did Facebook say they might revisit their decision to remove mentions of the whistleblower's name?

• If the name is published in a book.

• If the name is widely published in the media.

• If the name is mentioned in a private conversation.

• If the name is used in a movie.

What was the main concern of the whistleblower's attorney regarding the disclosure of the name?

• It would put the individual and their family at risk.

• It would result in financial loss.

• It would cause public embarrassment.

• It would lead to legal action.

What method did YouTube use to remove videos mentioning the whistleblower's name?

• Only machine learning.

• Only human review.

• Public voting system.

• A combination of human review and machine learning.

What is the potential impact of disclosing the whistleblower's name according to the attorney?

• It would have no impact.

• It would encourage more whistleblowers.

• It would deter future whistleblowers.

• It would enhance the whistleblower system.