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.

> 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??

Where does it address "the subject matter in question"?

She leaked 18k documents. How does the number of direct reports she supervised affect their veracity?

They are addressing the testimony provided, not the documents which have not been provided.

Generally after hacking a company, the documents are provided in a ZIP for everyone to download. Information wants to be free, but we are only being provided with her summary of the documents rather than the evidence itself.

> They are addressing the testimony provided…

How? Where?

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.

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

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.