back to article Clegg on its face: Facebook turns to former UK deputy PM to fend off damaging headlines

Facebook has hit back at a series of reports in the Wall Street Journal as it tries to counter a week of damaging headlines which lifted the lid on the inner workings of the social media biz. The WSJ alleged Facebook Inc knows, "in acute detail, that its platforms are riddled with flaws that cause harm, often in ways only the …

  1. wolfetone Silver badge

    “It’s a claim which could only be made by cherry-picking selective quotes from individual pieces of leaked material in a way that presents complex and nuanced issues as if there is only ever one right answer,” he wrote."

    Enough about how to be a politician Mr.Clegg, now answer the damn question.

    1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

      I was going say that I was surprised Clegg was still at Facebook/surely it's past the time when Clegg was of some use to Zuckerberg - looks like I was sadly mistaken.l

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I don't know how a british politician can bear to work with morally bankrupt pathological liars...again.

      1. Kane
        Headmaster

        I don't know how a british politician morally bankrupt pathological liar can bear to work with morally bankrupt pathological liars...again.

        FTFY.

      2. nematoad
        FAIL

        ...he will be fair and impartial in his dealings with tech companies despite once describing Facebook as "morally bankrupt pathological liars."

        What's wrong with that?

        It's the truth and if he is embarrassed about it how can he be "fair and impartial" if he is changing his tune before he even starts the job in a way that looks like he is taking Facebook's side already?

      3. Dan 55 Silver badge

        If you're going to sell your soul to the devil, I guess you have to get used to working for merely evil people first.

      4. MiguelC Silver badge

        Re: "I don't know how a british politician can bear (...anything...)"

        Ooh! Ooh!I know that one: "money"!

        1. Version 1.0 Silver badge

          Re: "I don't know how a british politician can bear (...anything...)"

          "He was gonna give more hope to the young,

          If we had to give him a score for his efforts,

          Marks out of ten – he'd get one.

          What's the point of Nick Clegg?"

          - Captain Ska.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "@I don't know how a british politician can bear to work with morally bankrupt pathological liars...again."

        Wait, what he Zuck is a british politician? FireSale UK strikes again

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        re. I don't know how a british politician

        a thinly disguised note of sarcasm detect I?

    3. a pressbutton

      Clegg is useful until the s*** is so intense that only a high profile resignation will be enough to change the narrative.

      At which point his services will be dispensed with. No one in facebook will blame him (publicly) but the departure will be _linked_.

      Later on you may find him working for a cigarette manufacturer, or a shady regime. Other ex-pols have worn smooth the process chart of this for him over the years.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "Later on you may find him working for a cigarette manufacturer,"

        Ohh, yeah! he could go do PR for Philip Morris, the tobacco giant trying to buy up a medical inhaler company producing stuff to counteract the effects of smoking!

        1. Potemkine! Silver badge

          I would suggest anyone watching "Thank you for smoking". It's very instructive.

      2. JetSetJim

        They're working from the same playbook. Here's a side by side comparision with Big Tobacco self-defence PR:

        https://twitter.com/BridgetOBarrett/status/1439596436858056710

      3. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Clegg is "High Profile" ?

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      30 Years on, there will still be people paying back their student loans...

      And absolutely detesting Clegg.

      The hatred will run deep for this man for those affected, because of his complete two-faced stance on tuition fees, to suck up student votes.

      I'm not sure he could even spell the word 'credibility'.

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: 30 Years on, there will still be people paying back their student loans...

        @AC

        "The hatred will run deep for this man for those affected, because of his complete two-faced stance on tuition fees, to suck up student votes."

        Cancelling tuition fees is a great promise to sell to people looking to benefit from it. But the reality is no, such a thing is not a realistic policy. The good news is that the target audience have little experience of life so they dont realise until they do their part

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 30 Years on, there will still be people paying back their student loans...

          I obtained two degrees for free: An engineering degree and a Masters. All paid for by the government. And zero student loan to pay back. I was also able to get a good deal on a house in a nice area and a very affordable mortgage with almost no deposit.

          It's easy to pull up the ladder and sit pretty after one has fully profited. Pointing at the next generation saying free education is not a realistic policy.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: 30 Years on, there will still be people paying back their student loans...

            I'm deeply uneasy about people using the term 'All paid for by the government', because, while a case of 'you-know-what-I-mean', some people take it at face value (like argument that cyclists should be banned from roads, because they don't pay 'road tax').

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: 30 Years on, there will still be people paying back their student loans...

              Good point. How about, "Paid for by the public purse."? (Like the Queen!)

          2. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: 30 Years on, there will still be people paying back their student loans...

            @AC

            "I obtained two degrees for free: An engineering degree and a Masters. All paid for by the government."

            Great. How and where (country)?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: 30 Years on, there will still be people paying back their student loans...

              "Great. How and where (country)?"

              The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.

              How? Education was free at the time. (Circa 1986-1990)

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: 30 Years on, there will still be people paying back their student loans...

                @AC

                "The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.

                How? Education was free at the time. (Circa 1986-1990)"

                And that is why I asked. So that was when far fewer kids went to uni and so was more affordable to the public budget. Now people can take useless courses on left handed puppetry and when they find no market for their degree cry they have a loan and everyone else should pay for it.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: 30 Years on, there will still be people paying back their student loans...

                  People taking useless courses? That's no way to talk about Computer Science graduates. Joking aside, your argument is unconvincing at best. Just second hand opinion quoted from other sources?

                  1. codejunky Silver badge

                    Re: 30 Years on, there will still be people paying back their student loans...

                    @AC

                    "People taking useless courses? That's no way to talk about Computer Science graduates"

                    That did get a chuckle, but yes there has been a proliferation of useless courses just to soak up the money... erm attract students. Your free tuition was because a lot fewer people went to uni and that could be supported. Labours aim was 50% of kids going to uni, it was wildly unaffordable.

                    "Joking aside, your argument is unconvincing at best."

                    And yet what changed? You got taxpayer funded education when fewer students needed it and now that kids are shoved in that direction the tax payer cannot afford the bill. If thats an unconvincing argument I dont know how and you may need to elaborate.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: 30 Years on, there will still be people paying back their student loans...

                      "Labours aim was 50% of kids going to uni, it was wildly unaffordable."

                      But tuition fees came in (in England) under the Conservatives. And these were then allowed to rise at a staggering rate. Thus education moved from being something we could all aim for to something only the well off can really afford to have. Engineering (in my sector) boomed in the UK in the 80s and 90s. We now have to look elsewhere to employ graduates. We've shot ourselves in the foot.

                      1. codejunky Silver badge

                        Re: 30 Years on, there will still be people paying back their student loans...

                        @AC

                        "But tuition fees came in (in England) under the Conservatives."

                        No they didnt. It was one of Blairs lies. He claimed no tuition fees then introduced them once elected. I know I was paying them when they first came in.

                        "And these were then allowed to rise at a staggering rate"

                        Very true (I was done before that). Because the cost of tuition is much more than taxpayers could support, useless degrees were popping up all over and everyone suddenly needed degrees just to sweep the floor.

                        "Thus education moved from being something we could all aim for to something only the well off can really afford to have"

                        I wont argue with that. So to return to that we would need to cut down the support for degrees and fund fewer students. That way the tax payer can afford to support the few that go and the rest pay their own way (likely with student loans with how things have changed).

                        "We've shot ourselves in the foot."

                        I dont disagree. People could get apprenticeships which fell due to the uni push. I am not disagreeing with you but the situation changed which is why you could go on the taxpayers dime (and probably worth it) vs now.

                        1. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: 30 Years on, there will still be people paying back their student loans...

                          "No they didnt. It was one of Blairs lies. He claimed no tuition fees then introduced them once elected. I know I was paying them when they first came in."

                          Ah yes. Quite right my mistake. I thought fees came-in in 1992. That was actually when the Polys got Universitied.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 30 Years on, there will still be people paying back their student loans...

        But why won't they also detest Cameron and all the Tories who policy it actually was and who used the chance of voting reform as the lever to cram this down everyone's throats?

      3. David Nash Silver badge

        Re: 30 Years on, there will still be people paying back their student loans...

        Fortunately, they are written off after 30 years.

  2. PeeKay

    This being the same Nick Clegg who said that the Lib Dems would never charge for education - then went ahead and did exactly that?

    It's like asking a wolf to mind the sheep.

    1. Graham Cobb Silver badge

      I understand why this one particular compromise still angers so many people who had to pay the increased fees but let's not forget that the Liberals used that concession to secure some major civil liberties wins, which are still with us. Most notably, killing Identity Cards - my personal most concerning issue at that election, as a lifelong Liberal voter.

      Don't forget that tuition fees had been introduced by a previous government - the issue for the coalition was whether to increase them.

      Which other Liberal manifesto commitments would you have preferred them to give up to get into government, instead of the fees increase? I am genuinely interested to know.

      I am only angry that the AV referendum was screwed up! That is the most significant lasting problem from that time.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Personally, as a Liberal voter, I would like the Liberal Democrats to learn to be both liberal and democratic, as the current party is neither.

      2. Arthur the cat Silver badge
        Big Brother

        Most notably, killing Identity Cards

        “That is not dead which can eternal lie"

        Identity cards are a Home Office goal. The idea turns up every decade or so, whatever party happens to be in power. The excuses vary to match the party's particular bugbear – "ID cards will help prevent crime", "ID cards will make benefits easier to manage" – but the aim is to get us all to have a single official identity. The only way to stop it is to have a root and branch reform of the Home Office and no political party will do that.

        1. Dan 55 Silver badge

          The latest: "Voter ID will stop electoral fraud"

          There were only two cautions and four convictions for voter fraud in 2019

          I'm pretty sure requiring ID for voting will disenfranchise more than six people.

          1. Version 1.0 Silver badge

            It's the way to win an election, you don't need people to vote for you - you just need to stop people voting against you. The conservatives are adopting Gerrymandering now, it's a lot more efficient.

        2. Friendly Neighbourhood Coder Dan

          "killing Identity Cards"

          Not saying it is right or wrong, but as European citizen in the EU I can guarantee that Brits' issues with ID is one of the things that baffles us the most. Almost on the same level as the crazy taps which let you choose between frost bites and third degree burns

          1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

            Yes, our taps are dumb. But it comes from water regulations that prevent the mixing of water until it exist the spout, as often hot water was from a tank-supplied system and not potable, so they don't want listeria, etc, back-flowing in to the cold potable-water system.

            The issue with ID cards is we never had them, outside of world wars, and was always a basic assumption that you did not need to prove you had any right to live and go about your lawful business. Add in to that the whole "Papers, please" of various police states, and the gross incompetence of our own government to either (a) manage them competently, or (b) not add feature-creep for whatever fear-de-jour of the tabloids.

            Sadly we see them coming back like a bad penny whenever there is a chance for authoritarian gains, so bogey man of voter fraud, the general dislike of foreigners that Brexit-voters often show, COVID arguments for vaccination (though oddly that has not taken off in England yet, but seems to be infecting Scottish and Welsh politician's minds).

            1. Irongut

              > COVID arguments for vaccination (though oddly that has not taken off in England yet, but seems to be infecting Scottish and Welsh politician's minds).

              Actually the Tories brow beat the regional assemblies into accepting vaccine passports and then realised that they are ID cards so went strangely silent on the matter. Funny that, it's almost as if Boris wanted the other leaders to be unpopular with the public.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              The biggest issue with the ID card proposal was not the card itself, but the enormous database behind it. Problems such as the sheer number of orgs that could access it, not to mention building one huge target for ID thieves. Even if they could achieve the impossible and make it hack proof, you will still have people with legitimate access using it for dodgy purposes like stalking an ex.

              If you build it, they will come.

            3. Lars Silver badge
              Coat

              No the water problem is absolutely ridiculous you let your self remain behind the rest of Europe in exactly the same way taking a vote in the parliament takes half an hour with MPs wandering around the chicken house when the rest of Europe uses a minute or two before pressing a button.

              Most Brits don't actually understand why they need two taps and I now wonder if it's still true, and for sure, it cannot be so in any bigger town.

              Your explanation for the two taps is rubbish, also there was a time when you had no cars and still you have cars today.

              I love you too and wish I could help you.

              1. Ian Johnston Silver badge

                We don't need two taps any more, but we're used to them and we like them. Now, shall we talk about those bizarre mains plugs and sockets used across the EU in many forms? The unfused ones which may or may not have an earth and generally don't allocate live and neutral?

                1. Julz

                  The irony is that the design we use for our fused three pin 13amp plugs tops and sockets was originally a German design.

              2. Arthur the cat Silver badge

                … you let your self remain behind the rest of Europe in exactly the same way taking a vote in the parliament takes half an hour with MPs wandering around the chicken house when the rest of Europe uses a minute or two before pressing a button.

                We're actually ahead of Europe in insisting that MP physically vote – it stops the buggers passing more damn fool laws than they already do. One day you mainlanders will realise the benefit.

                Most Brits don't actually understand why they need two taps and I now wonder if it's still true, and for sure, it cannot be so in any bigger town.

                Most Brits don't understand why they need an earth in the electrical wiring, but it's still sensible.

                Your explanation for the two taps is rubbish, also there was a time when you had no cars and still you have cars today.

                As Paul Crawford correctly said, it's the UK plumbing standard. I have mixer taps everywhere but if you look at the actual plumbing inside there are two separate pipes right up to the end and the water mixes in the output stream.

                1. Lars Silver badge
                  Coat

                  "there are two separate pipes right up to the end"

                  Of course there is, Sherlock, but the reason you can join them into that one tap is that the pressure in both pipes is equal.

                  It's as simple as that.

                  1. Arthur the cat Silver badge

                    No, you misunderstand. At the outlet of the tap there are two separate pipes producing two streams of water that mix in the air. The pipes are never joined.

                    What you're probably missing is that most UK housing does not have mains pressure hot water(*). Joining cold water at 2-3 bar mains pressure and hot water at the pressure produced by a header tank maybe 3-4 metres higher than the outlet isn't a recipe for success.

                    (*) My 1890s house does but only because I had it replumbed during major building work ~12 years ago.

                    1. Lars Silver badge
                      Coat

                      OMG Arthur the cat

                      What is it with you, I wrote "that the pressure in both pipes is equal." and "It's as simple as that".

                      And now you write I don't understand what you are missing. Incredible.

                      OMG again, there are two pipes one with hot water and one with colder water.

                      They meet in a mixer in that one multipurpose tap (all without any air), in front of the boss, the person who decides how warm he/she wants the water to be coming out of the tap.

                      That person operates that incredible multipurpose tap "handle" by moving it horizontally, colder to the right and warmer to the left. For more or for less water that person will lift it higher for more, and for no water at all he/she will press it totally down. That works exactly as when screwing down one not so modern water tap.

                      I am beginning to understand the Brexit vote.

                      PS.there are more advanced taps too but lets wait with that.

              3. ICL1900-G3

                Thank you, Lars

                I agree with you entirely, I have no idea why so many choose to downvote the factual, but it's quite normal here. Thank you for you love!

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            re. Brits' issues with ID is one of the things that baffles us the most

            As an EU citizen I have an impression that this is an argument I have heard many times, yet I have never seen any proof that the EU citizens are 'baffled' by this British quirk. Some, between-the-lines justification for this 'bafflement' is that most EU (and other) countries do require a mandatory ID, sometimes to carry, sometimes just to have, and they have grown used to it. That argument (we have grown used to it,therefore it is right) is not one I would buy. Perhaps there' an additional argument of 'pragmatism', and / or 'resignation' (what can you do?). I can understand those two, but again, I don't buy them.

            1. Lars Silver badge
              Thumb Down

              Re: re. Brits' issues with ID is one of the things that baffles us the most

              "sometimes to carry,"

              There are no such countries in the EU where you have to carry an ID and I don't think there is in the rest of Europe either.

              PS. If I have to prove my identity I use my driving license.

              I think they are not unknown or hated in Britain either.

          3. codejunky Silver badge

            @Friendly Neighbourhood Coder Dan

            "as European citizen in the EU I can guarantee that Brits' issues with ID is one of the things that baffles us the most."

            We saw how it went really wrong in Germany and are more libertarian than Europe. An issue also shown in UK law vs European.

          4. Arthur the cat Silver badge

            as European citizen in the EU I can guarantee that Brits' issues with ID is one of the things that baffles us the most.

            1) Brits believe government should prove its validity to exist to the people, not the other way round.

            2) If you have to have identity papers, then information like "Juden" or "Tutsi" or other religious/ethnic affiliation can be printed on them at the whim of government. The first is why two generations ago half of my wife's family lost both identity papers and identity at a place called Auschwitz.

            1. Potemkine! Silver badge

              Brits believe government should prove its validity to exist to the people, not the other way round.

              If your government doesn't represent the people, change your system.

              If you have to have identity papers, then information like "Juden" or "Tutsi" or other religious/ethnic affiliation can be printed on them at the whim of government. The first is why two generations ago half of my wife's family lost both identity papers and identity at a place called Auschwitz.

              You don't need ID cards to register people. You name is in thousands of databases, public and private. And you don't need ID cards to force people to wear a yellow star on their clothes.

              ID cards aren't the problem. Rulers are. Breaking the thermometer doesn't reduce the fever.

          5. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "one of the things that baffles us"

            What baffles me is they think they can "Take Back Control" without knowing who's in their own country. England* has no Idea how many people are within its borders. And currently cannot even accurately work out who is unvaccinated because of this.

            *I don't know for the other nations' health authorities.

        3. Jason Hindle

          I don't get the furore over identity cards

          We must be the only country on the planet where you can be asked for proof of identity that you're not legally required to have. There are things I can't do because I only have one form of photo ID, my passport (no driving license, gun license and so on). There are many things my parents can't do because they have no photo ID at all (and they're both getting to the stage where they regard themselves as too old to be arsed). Remind me: how worse off are the Europeans, compared to us, for having to carry an identify card?

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          re. The only way to stop it is to have a root and branch reform of the Home Office

          this will never happen (sorry). And it's a one-way road, going downhill. Every next government of whatever colour has the same obsession/paranoia: CONTROL, which morphs in their minds into (successful) MANAGEMENT. They have this illusion (perhaps not!) that having the sheep counted, and tracked and individually tagged helps greatly to manage the flock. And if this or that one kicks or misbehaves in other, unsanctioned way, there are ways to de-incentivise them. No need to be brutal, we're a democracy, right? Just ask Chinese government about points system...

      3. teebie

        The last time the lib dems had any power was when they were writing the agreement with the tories for the coalition. Then the coalition started, and they were scapegoats.

        The tories would probably have agreed to a clause that said "we won't vote for anything that breaks one of our pledges". "The AV referendum will have to follow election commission rules" would probably have been harder to get through.

      4. Ken Hagan Gold badge

        This struck me as the most obvious missing piece from EL reg's quick bio. Yes, Nick actually became leader of his party on a ticket of opposing ID cards, on the grounds that they were an abomination unto Om, er, Privacy.

        Then he got a job with Facebook.

        I'm still baffled.

      5. Irongut

        As a former Liberal voter, Nick Clegg killed all support I had for the party and judging by subsequent elections I'm not the only one. So he effectively gave up all Liberal policies, ideas and manifesto commitments now and forever more by making them completely unelectable. Whch is a very "significant lasting problem from that time."

        And it gets worse, I'm now an SNP voter so Clegg may have had a direct hand in destroying the union.

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Liberals used that concession to secure some major civil liberties wins,

        I think you might put too much weight on why people are still angry about what you generously call, Clegg's 'compromise'. I think it was not just the actual, long-term, mentally crippling debt, it was because people genuinely believed and trusted Clegg that he would STAND for certain values, no matter what - he betrayed those people, and their trust, gave up those values for some pathetic and ultimately, short-lived promise to 'restrain' Tories. Had he stuck to those values, he would have lost his job, but kept his values and his face. Instead he's just a (well-paid) looser and always will be.

    2. elsergiovolador Silver badge

      Also the same LibDems pledging decriminalisation of drugs only to back prohibition when they got their own drugs minister.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        The Liberal Democrats have always succeeded in getting elected in local government and parliamentary constituencies by supporting local issues, no matter what the national parties views on the issues were, and often diametrical opposed to what the next door Liberal was promising. This used to work very well, and still does as demonstrated by the Chesham and Amersham by-election. However getting in to government, even as a minor partner, kills that goose, as the party as a whole has to come down on one side or another on an issue.

    3. Arthur the cat Silver badge

      It's like asking a wolf to mind the sheep.

      The picture of Clegg doesn't look like a wolf, it looks like a man in existential despair, as if he thought he was staring into the abyss and suddenly realised it was a mirror.

      1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        That would mean he has a conscience.

        He has demonstrated that that is not the case.

      2. Irongut

        Nah he's just looking at a video of his old mate Dave, giving it to a pig.

    4. Annihilator

      Have never really understood the outrage on this. The "Lib Dems" didn't charge for education. The Conservative/LibDem coalition government did (more accurately, they raised the cap). If they'd been elected in with a mandate or majority, and *then* did that, I could understand the outrage. Always find it staggering that the people taking the hit on the coalition government were the minority party in that arrangement, and not the Conservatives...

      On the flip side, we have a current government that is raising taxes having promised not to in their manifesto. Although I'm sure someone is already weaseling up a view that National Insurance isn't a tax, so it's technically not a broken promise.

      1. Ian Mason

        The outrage is that the Lib Dems promised not to raise fees and then did a U-turn and supported the Torys in doing so. In the cesspit that is politics the Lib Dems stood for two things: integrity and pursing policies based on reason rather than doctrine. The first time in ages that they had any power they immediately abandoned both and in the process abandoned everybody who supported them because they espoused those values. They became the same as the other parties "will do or say anything to gain power or hold on to it".

        1. Fred Dibnah

          The outrage for me is that by going into coalition instead of making an informal arrangement, the Lib Dems enabled the Tories to implement their 'austerity' programme of huge public spending cuts - loading those cuts onto local government services in order to deflect the blame off themselves and onto councils.

        2. Graham Cobb Silver badge

          The only alternative the LibDems had to the Tory coalition at that point was complete annihilation by the need to have another election within 6 months, for which the voters would have blamed the LibDems. They had tried to get a coalition with Labour and failed.

          They did not "do or say anything to gain power" - they compromised in order to get many of their policies enacted. Of course, I would have liked the voters to have given them the largest number of seats so they could have had control but they didn't. Would you really have preferred that they walked away from having any of their policies implemented because they forced another election in 6 months and then were wiped out by voters who saw that minority government didn't work?

          I have voted Liberal my entire life and I get really annoyed by those who seem to say that they shouldn't have taken the opportunity to bring sense and moderation to the Tory government. Although only half as annoyed as I am by those who claim they are liberals but haven't voted for them ever since. Thanks a lot, mates.

          And no one has answered my question: which other policies should they have compromised on instead of the increase in tuition fees?

        3. veti Silver badge

          You seem to have a strong opinion about what "integrity" and "reason" involve.

          Unfortunately you're talking about politics. Compromise and concession are the name of the game. If you can't accept that, then either stay out entirely or go full Trump.

          Personally I respect Clegg for having the guts to do what it took to get some of his goals enacted, even though it meant sacrificing other goals. That's how democracy is supposed to work.

          1. Graham Cobb Silver badge

            Exactly. Even governments with majorities have to deal with compromise and concession, and tiny parties (that the voters have chosen to deny a mandate to) have to compromise almost completely. The LibDems of the time chose to prioritise their anti-authoritarian goals over their economic inclusion goals. A difficult decision (I note that the eventual choice was more aligned with the Liberal, as opposed to Social Democratic, tradition).

            If the AV vote had been won, and coalitions and minority governments had become the norm (like in much of Europe), we would probably all be celebrating Clegg's choice - especially as they would be likely to have been able to reverse the fees after the next election.

            But the people decided to reject Liberal Democracy. They have spoken.

        4. Julz

          @Ian Mason - Just that. Have many up votes.

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "On the flip side, we have a current government that is raising taxes having promised not to in their manifesto. Although I'm sure someone is already weaseling up a view that National Insurance isn't a tax, so it's technically not a broken promise."

        While I agree with the sentiment, no government of any colour would be able to avoid raising taxes somewhere, somehow after 18 months of a pandemic, various lockdowns, a massive spend on furlough payments, huge losses in the economy and so many other costs I can;t be arsed to list them all. Although it's interesting how the tax has been introduced. In one respect, you are right because technically it's a new tax, not a tax increase, but that takes time to implement and bring into law, so increasing another tax until the new one is introduced is technically both breaking and keeping their promise :-)

  3. ComputerSays_noAbsolutelyNo Silver badge

    Faecebook defense 101

    We operate as a black box, opaque to all you plebs.

    The problems you have reported have already been dealt with by update X to our black box.

    Now go away, there is nothing to see and less to worry about.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: Faecebook defense 101

      In case anyone is in any doubt, Clegg is defending this here:

      Madness on stills (Byline TV video, 2m14s)

  4. Eclectic Man Silver badge

    Incapable or unwilling?

    The article says that the US politicians believe that FaceBook is incapable of holding itself to account. I don't agree, I think they are perfectly capable of holding themselves to account - they just find it more profitable not to, and so I'd say "unwilling"

    1. ThatOne Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Incapable or unwilling?

      Holding to account is the job of the accountants...

      In this Facebook is no different than any other big, ruthless corporation.

    2. Warm Braw

      Re: Incapable or unwilling?

      In that respect, I'd be interested to know if Clegg even knows what research has been conducted or is simply attaching his face to a statement prepared by the press office.

      1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

        Re: Incapable or unwilling?

        simply attaching his face to a statement

        Just like a Facesbook meme?

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Incapable or unwilling?

        "attaching his face to a statement prepared by the press office."

        With staples? Preferably big ones. Lots of them.

  5. elsergiovolador Silver badge

    Intelligence

    Facebook exists only because they have a very granular database of almost everyone's life. It's a goldmine for security services, so they are allowed to do whatever they want. Plus they can facilitate censorship on behalf of the government bypassing the constitution.

    So really the fuss only exists because of some brave journalists that have access to media platforms that are not yet censored.

    If we didn't have those journalists, would you ever hear about Facebook being up to no good? I doubt it. It would be another conspiracy theory.

    1. Lars Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Intelligence

      Facebook exists only because ..... people use it, I don't, nor should you.

      PS. I was able to stop smoking too.

  6. 45RPM Silver badge

    He really is a disgrace. If only there was a way for the LibDems to distance themselves from this odious twerp. He’s done untold damage to the LibDems - if only he could be relied upon to do the same for Facebook.

  7. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "we don’t shy away from scrutiny and criticism"

    No, indeed you do not.

    You just brush it off and ignore it, continuing business as usual.

  8. Annihilator

    "Writing in the company’s blog over the weekend, Clegg, whose job title at Facebook is vice president of Global Affairs, wrote"

    I'm willing to put fairly big money behind this statement - my arse did he write it himself. Signed off on it at most.

  9. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

    Theres a phrase that

    springs to mind whenever someone mentions clegg

    I believe its "fuck off"

    <<<former liberal voter and very angry at the way cleggy et al betrayed the party to the tories

  10. Youngone Silver badge

    Pardon?

    I'm confused. I thought Cleggy was that old bloke off the Last of the Summer Wine.

    What's with the pic of the insurance salesman?

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Employing this sort of ex-poli is prima facie evidence that they are involved in deeply antisocial doings. It's not going to help their reputation one bit.

    But then the objective of this kind of lobbyist is to forestall any effective government action being taken by muddying the political process.

    It's an admission that they've lost the public PR battle, and are now just concentrating on getting away with as much as possible , as long as they can.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    Morally bankrupt pathological liars

    Vice president of Global Affairs for a bunch of morally bankrupt pathological liars turns out to be a morally bankrupt pathological liar.

    Who would have guessed?

    Someone please do this to Facebook -->

    1. marcellothearcane

      Re: Icon

      No need, they do it to themselves!

  13. Lars Silver badge
    Happy

    Clegg wrote this

    Clegg wrote this many years ago and I had to copy/past it because I was surprising a politician had the guts to be both honest and brave and British.

    "All nations have a cross to bear, and none more so than Germany with its memories of Nazism. But the British cross is more insidious still. A misplaced sense of superiority, sustained by delusions of grandeur and a tenacious obsession with the last war, is much harder to shake off"

    And I would claim he has managed to find a less crooked future than Cameron.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Try NEW “Clegg”

    Dirty stain?

    Hard to remove dirt?

    Just add Clegg, so dirty you’ll never see that stain again.

  15. RobLang

    Laughed at the headline!

    Whenever I read Clegg in the same sentence as "deputy PM", I think of "Deputy Project Manager". Deputy Project Manager the kind of role you give an enthusiastic but ultimately hopeless member of staff to keep them quiet.

  16. m0rt

    Hard working commentard....

    I like how the phrase 'hard work' gets bandied around like it confers automatic righteousness upon the hardworkee.

    Real evil ingenuity requires hard work too!

  17. Sam Therapy
    Flame

    Mr Clegg - and Facebook collectively - need to fuck themselves. With something sharp.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Clegg, whose job title at Facebook is vice president of Global Affairs

    Even his job title is a play on Yes Minister - Jim Hacker, the Minister of Administrative Affairs.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    former UK Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg

    funny, how strong my feelings about this... person, even though, his perfect 'volte' on tuition fees didn't affect me then and doesn't affect me now. Perhaps my feelings have grown, because it WILL affect my children who, instead of studying in England or Wales, to avoid getting into life-long debt, will study [almost free] abroad & thank God for the EU passports! Though, ironically, this might be a good move for them in a broader sense.

    Or was it because I personally felt conned by a bloke that _appeared_ to offer the third way between corrupt Tony Blair and his pals, and corrupt Tories and their pals (and I mean 'corrupt' in all possible ways), while the third way appeared to be the same way? Yeah, that might be it. So, fuck facebook and fuck Clegg.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "the stories contained “deliberate mischaracterizations of what we are trying to do...""

    Perhaps true, but they also contain dliberate characterizations of what you're ACTUALLY doing. And it's not good. Not good at all.

  21. Jonjonz

    This is called the shake down phase, where politicians, previously oblvious to something, discover it, threaten to regulate or tax it, and then forget the whole thing after the right contributions are made to them.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like