The Tribune

With CHARLIE HARPER

FACEBOOK owner Mark Zuckerberg and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell are both in the news these days, for many of the same basic reasons. While neither is likely very happy about the situation, they can likely take some comfort from the fact that they are both very wealthy, powerful and influential. And even in the near term, both are likely to retain the outsized influence they wield, both in the U.S. and around the world.

Public uproar about Facebook is not new. The insanely popular internet platform has an unparalleled global reach. Facebook has an estimated 3.51 billion monthly users. The world’s population currently stands at 7.9 billion. That means that 44% of this earth’s inhabitants check in on Facebook at least once every thirty days. If global reach is the aim of your advertising dollar, how could you do any better than to sign up with Zuckerberg?

It’s hardly surprising that this 37-year-old, whose company is now 17 years old, is one of the wealthiest people who have ever lived. It’s also not surprising that politicians and rivals see plenty of advantages in ramping up scrutiny of Facebook’s policies and procedures. Zuckerberg has testified before a sceptical U.S. Congress numerous times, but critics complain that little has changed.

Now comes Frances Haugen, a former Facebook product manager who, in testimony supported by extensive documentary evidence, alleges that Zuckerberg and Facebook have incited hatred around the world, endangered the physical and mental health and well-being of children, and pursued a hypocritical course on basic issues such as free speech, to the detriment of millions in many countries around the world.

One particular current complaint is that Zuckerberg personally made the decision to acquiesce to the demands of the ruling Vietnamese Communist Party before a recent party convention. Facing heavy government pressure, Facebook allegedly agreed to censor the comments of dissidents or risk the Hanoi government’s kicking Facebook off the internet in Vietnam. This, if true, contradicts Zuckerberg’s frequent and vehement support of free speech in many other contexts, including American politics.

The ubiquitous and pervasive presence of mostly unfiltered Facebook content in American political life is often cited as a major reason for the ascendency and continuing influence of demagogues like former US president Trump and many of his most public allies and supporters.

While one of democracy’s greatest strengths and attractions is its support for individual liberties and freedoms, these can also be its undoing. The threat of Facebook and similar platforms pose to democracy by lending corporate credibility to so many of the lies and outright nonsense circulating on social media these days worries thoughtful people across the American political spectrum.

It’s not as though Facebook has ignored its influence on American political life, however. In the wake of the January 6 assault on the U.S. capitol building in Washington, DC, the company eventually decided to ban Trump from its platform for two years.

“Given the gravity of the circumstances that led to Mr. Trump’s suspension, we believe his actions constituted a severe violation of our rules which merit the highest penalties available,” Facebook said at the time.

“If we determine that there is still a serious risk to public safety, we will extend the restriction for a set period of time and continue to re-evaluate until that risk has receded.” On his return, Trump will be held to “a strict set of rapidly escalating sanctions” for any violations, the company said.

Trump’s response at the time the ban was announced: “They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this censoring and silencing, and ultimately, we will win. Our country can’t take this abuse anymore!” Now Trump has launched his own social media platform. If it succeeds, it will restore and expand his own considerable influence, while, of course, further enriching him.

Facebook is so popular and influential because it fills an important need for billions of people. It offers an easy connection to others, among many other attractions. Zuckerberg clearly deserves a lot of credit, notwithstanding the numerous alleged deleterious side-effects of his enterprise.

Similarly, National Football League commissioner Roger Goodell deserves much credit for the huge success the league and its multimillionaire owners have enjoyed during his 15 years in charge of operations.

With 32 teams valued at an average of $3 billion and an overall league valuation of around $100 billion, the NFL, like Facebook, can reasonably denominate its influence and power in figures numbering in the billions. It’s a giant, wildly popular enterprise that continues to demonstrate its reach with each new successive, very lucrative television deal.

The NFL also navigated, and continues to navigate, the COVID-19 pandemic much more effectively and efficiently than any of its major U.S. sports colleagues. The league and its players association now estimate that over 94 percent of NFL players are vaccinated against the coronavirus, and though positive COVID tests still sideline NFL players every week – notably several Green Bay Packers players and coaches ahead of a key game against the undefeated Arizona Cardinals tonight – the league completed its entire schedule in 2020 and seems certain to do so again this year.

Goodell, who earns an estimated $45 – 50 million annually, is paid by the NFL owners to administer their league and protect their investments in franchises whose exponential value growth makes them one of the best and safest investments anywhere. He is also practically employed to serve as the owners’ public face and shield these wealthy plutocrats from the annoying curiosity and persistence of journalists and the odd member of the American public who puts concern for the league’s dirty underside ahead of Sunday cheering for the local team.

The current issue for Goodell is basically the owner of a storied NFL franchise that dates back to 1932. But while the erstwhile Washington Redskins are in their 90th season, the team’s history is besmirched. The very last NFL franchise to integrate its players’ ranks by employing black players, the Redskins until last year also operated under a nickname that was profoundly offensive to Native American Indians.

Since 1999, what is now somewhat euphemistically named the Washington Football Team has been owned by 56-year-old Dan Snyder, who grew up as a Redskins fan and dropped out of college to found a series of opportunistic businesses that eventually led to a career in marketing that has helped to propel him to billionaire status.

Snyder has seemed personally sneaky and nasty to such an extent that he has severely damaged the popularity of one of the NFL’s most valuable franchises. He has faced league discipline on a number of occasions, and last year had to bow to pressure from anxious corporate sponsors and abandon the controversial Redskins nickname. Snyder had previously often and publicly refused to countenance changing the team’s name.

Against this background of controversy came allegations last year of pervasive misogyny and harassment of female employees of the team by senior executives, including Snyder. A league-mandated investigation produced an oral report – supposedly nothing in writing – that included a review of 650,000 internal emails and resulted in a fine for Snyder and his replacement as chief operating officer of the franchise.

The replacement was his wife. It all felt to critics like a light slap on the wrist.

Last month, the NFL investigation into the Washington Football Team claimed a prominent victim. Las Vegas Raiders coach Jon Gruden, decades earlier a Super Bowl winner at Tampa Bay, was revealed to have exchanged racist and homophobic emails with Redskins executives and was summarily drummed out of his job and the league.

That was the end of the matter for Goodell and the NFL. But there has been a persistent outcry from journalists and from the team’s fans for the league to release all the emails, largely in the hope that they will sufficiently indict Snyder to compel the league to force him to sell the team. Significantly, the team’s record under Snyder’s ownership has been poor.

On Tuesday, Goodell reiterated the NFL stance that it will not release additional emails. As usual, he skillfully parried reporters’ questions, and eventually the news conference moved on to other matters.

Goodell and Zuckerberg, both masters of their universes, doubtless expect that the country will soon also move on from scrutinizing them and their empires. Want to bet that they are wrong?