Introduction
Summary of the Book An Ugly Truth by Sheera Frenkel and Cecilia Kang Before we proceed, let’s look into a brief overview of the book. Imagine stepping into a giant room buzzing with billions of voices, each eager to speak, influence, and be heard. This room is owned by a company that started small but rose to incredible power in just a few years. At first glance, it seems exciting: people reconnect, share memories, and discover new ideas. But behind the cheerful chatter lurk dark corners filled with manipulation, hate, and conflict. This book takes you on a journey through the twists and turns of Facebook’s story, from its humble start to its tangled present. You will see how a platform built to bring people together instead fueled divisions, influenced elections, and reshaped cultures. By the end, you’ll understand that the truth behind Facebook’s rise is not just complicated—it’s an unsettling and urgent warning for our connected world.
Chapter 1: How a Dorm Room Idea Grew into a Worldwide Social Media Powerhouse Driven by Controversial Choices.
Imagine a college dorm room, cluttered with textbooks, half-finished snacks, and a young student’s dream. In 2004, Mark Zuckerberg launched a simple site called The Facebook from his Harvard University room. Back then, it was just a small online directory meant to help students find and connect with each other. Yet, nobody knew this small project would grow into a massive platform with billions of users around the world. Early on, the site was basic: it allowed people to create profiles, share limited information, and send messages. Students loved this new way to stay in touch. Soon, the community grew beyond Harvard, spreading to other colleges, and then to the general public. But underneath this exciting growth, something unsettling was taking shape—an obsession with engagement, attention, and influence that would later spark controversy.
As Facebook expanded, its young founder, Mark Zuckerberg, focused on one main goal: keep people using the site for as long as possible. Instead of worrying about being careful with user data or ensuring that everyone acted kindly, he seemed more interested in making the platform addictive. He learned early on that getting people to click, comment, and share was the secret to becoming huge. Even in the platform’s first versions, there were signs that Zuckerberg valued attention over ethics. In college, he had created a site called FaceMash, where students compared girls’ photos for attractiveness. Although he soon replaced it with the more respectable Facebook, the lesson stuck: controversy and attention worked wonders to draw people in, even if it meant stepping into uncomfortable territory.
By the time the site was renamed Facebook and fully opened to anyone aged 13 or older, it had already captured the hearts of countless users. In its early years, most people saw it as a harmless playground where you could share vacation pictures, update friends on your weekend plans, and reconnect with old classmates. Investors lined up, impressed by the soaring user numbers. Media outlets praised Facebook as the next big thing in Silicon Valley. Meanwhile, Zuckerberg poured time and resources into new features like the News Feed, a nonstop river of updates that kept users glued to their screens. While some grumbled about losing privacy, the metrics showed engagement skyrocketing. The more time people spent browsing, the happier Facebook’s leadership became.
Yet, hidden behind these ambitious expansions was a dangerous mindset. Zuckerberg and his team mostly measured success by how long people stayed on the site and how often they interacted with content. They paid less attention to what kind of content it was. This tunnel vision would later cause serious problems, giving hate speech, misinformation, and extremist opinions room to grow. As the platform soared, it did so without strong moral guardrails. Ethics took a back seat to growth. So, what began as a friendly, fun network connecting old pals would steadily morph into a tool used not just for communication, but also for spreading twisted ideas. By focusing on engagement at any cost, Facebook was planting the seeds of controversies that would soon shake the world.
Chapter 2: A Shrewd Businesswoman Joins the Ranks, Transforming a Burgeoning Network into a Mighty Advertising Giant.
When Sheryl Sandberg joined Facebook in 2008 as Chief Operating Officer, the company gained more than just a new executive—it gained a powerful architect of business strategy. Sandberg was not just a random hire; she was known in Silicon Valley as a brilliant business mind who had helped Google build its massive advertising empire. Zuckerberg, who cared more about growing the platform than making money, needed someone like her. With Sandberg’s arrival, Facebook’s focus began to shift. Her skill lay in figuring out how to turn a platform loved by millions into a goldmine of targeted advertising. She saw a hidden treasure chest of user data—people’s interests, hobbies, relationships—just waiting to be sold to companies eager to reach the right audience.
Sandberg’s plan was straightforward: gather as much information about users as possible, then use that data to serve them ads perfectly matched to their tastes. Under her guidance, Facebook introduced features like the Like button, which encouraged users to express their preferences. Each Like was a little clue about what you enjoyed, who you admired, and what products you might buy. Over time, Facebook learned more and more about each user, transforming them into valuable targets for advertisers. Sandberg understood that advertisers would pay big money for precise targeting, and Facebook had the tools to deliver exactly that. This shift made Facebook into a giant marketplace of user information, forever changing its image from a friendly social hangout to a sophisticated marketing machine.
As the money poured in, the platform’s growth seemed unstoppable. Yet, with all this success came a thorny problem: privacy. Many users felt uneasy that their personal details, family connections, and daily activities could be analyzed and sold to the highest bidder. Privacy experts and consumer rights groups sounded alarms, accusing Facebook of fooling people into sharing more than they intended. Complex and ever-changing privacy settings made it hard for users to know what they were revealing. Government watchdogs, like the Federal Trade Commission in the United States, tried to keep an eye on Facebook, but the company often found ways to tiptoe around rules. The complaints grew louder, but as long as the profits soared and user counts climbed, Sandberg and her team pushed forward.
This new era of Facebook—the money-making, ad-selling superpower—was driven by Sandberg’s expertise. She brought a corporate polish that Zuckerberg lacked, teaching Facebook how to speak to investors, charm advertisers, and boost revenue streams. The world’s largest brands lined up to pay for access to consumers’ minds, and Facebook happily collected their fees. The company’s employees admired Sandberg’s business brilliance even if they worried about where it all might lead. After all, without serious safeguards, the same systems that showed people interesting products could just as easily show them hateful propaganda or outrageous lies. Still, the company’s leaders seemed sure that things were under control. They believed that they could handle any issues. However, as political storms and global conflicts loomed, these beliefs would be deeply tested.
Chapter 3: Internal Conflicts Rise as Facebook Struggles to Keep Political Neutrality in a Heated World.
By the mid-2010s, Facebook was no longer just a fun place to browse baby photos or school reunion snapshots. It had become a central source of information for millions, shaping how people understood news, politics, and global events. This gave the company enormous influence but also turned it into a battleground. Heated political discussions flared up daily, sometimes exploding into hate speech or spreading false stories. Inside Facebook, employees debated what to allow and what to remove. They struggled with thorny questions: Should they delete a politician’s post that insulted minorities? Or keep it up because it was newsworthy? The struggle for neutrality became intense, and no single decision satisfied everyone.
In 2016, as the U.S. presidential election approached, these tensions grew. Journalists exposed leaks from inside Facebook that suggested the platform’s news feed favored certain political views. This triggered outcry from conservatives who felt censored and liberals who feared manipulation. Zuckerberg tried to calm critics by meeting right-wing commentators, reassuring them that Facebook did not discriminate. But when employees pushed for stronger rules against harmful content, Zuckerberg’s decisions often leaned toward leaving controversial material up. He insisted that Facebook believed in free speech and that people should decide what to trust. Behind closed doors, however, the team wrestled with algorithmic tweaks, trending topics, and bitter arguments about fairness.
Adding to the chaos, foreign actors noticed Facebook’s immense influence and jumped at the chance to spread their own political agendas. Russian-linked groups created fake accounts, posing as regular Americans, and posted divisive content to spark anger and mistrust. Some posts supported extreme ideologies or played on people’s fears about immigrants and religious groups. Although Facebook had security teams working on detecting and removing suspicious accounts, the flood of misinformation was hard to contain. The company took down some fake profiles, but the damage was done. News stories spread like wildfire, and false claims often reached huge audiences before anyone could verify them.
Inside Facebook’s offices, tension built. Engineers, moderators, and policy experts felt frustrated that no one could agree on how to handle the political firestorm. Some employees wanted tougher rules and more active moderation, while others warned that taking sides would anger powerful people and lead to backlash. The fear of losing users or provoking political enemies weighed heavily. All the while, the site’s popularity continued to grow. Billions of posts, shares, and comments made it nearly impossible to watch everything. This chaotic environment put Facebook at a crossroads: either double down on its neutral stance and risk fueling misinformation, or step in more aggressively and risk being accused of censorship. Neither path offered an easy way out.
Chapter 4: A Reluctant Reckoning with Election Meddling, Cambridge Analytica, and the Fallout of Data Misuse.
After the 2016 U.S. election results stunned the world, many pointed fingers at Facebook. Some believed that the platform’s algorithms, allowing highly charged content to spread, had influenced voters and shaped the national conversation. Inside the company, executives initially brushed these accusations aside. Zuckerberg publicly called the idea that fake news on Facebook affected the election outcome crazy. But as journalists dug deeper, troubling details emerged. Political consulting firms like Cambridge Analytica had secretly harvested personal data from millions of Facebook users, then used it to target specific political messages. The public was shocked to learn how easily their information could be sold and misused.
The Cambridge Analytica scandal rocked Facebook. It showed that the site’s focus on growth and advertising had allowed outsiders to bend the rules and exploit user trust. Lawmakers demanded explanations. Zuckerberg was called to testify before Congress, and for the first time, he faced serious questions about the company’s lack of oversight. While some politicians did not fully grasp the technical details, the hearings still put Facebook’s reputation on the line. Investors worried about the impact on the company’s image, and users wondered if they should delete their accounts.
Under pressure, Facebook made promises. It vowed to hire more moderators, improve security, and be more transparent about political ads. Still, many critics noticed that genuine reform remained limited. The company released public statements but stayed careful not to commit to major changes that might slow growth or hurt profits. The leadership’s main concern appeared to be preserving Facebook’s empire rather than fully fixing the systemic issues. While they removed some suspicious pages and launched new privacy settings, the complex problem of misinformation continued. With countless posts published every second, finding and removing harmful content was like trying to empty the ocean with a bucket.
Meanwhile, as governments worldwide took interest in how Facebook affected their elections, the platform’s every move came under scrutiny. European regulators discussed stricter data protection laws. The U.S. government mulled tighter rules for tech giants. Facebook’s executives insisted that they cared about privacy and safety, but their track record told a messier story. The platform’s structure, designed to keep people clicking and sharing, did not easily support careful content control. The underlying methods that fueled its growth—focusing on engagement and collecting user data—also opened the door to manipulation and misuse. From that point on, Facebook could no longer pretend that it was just a neutral tool. It had become an influential force, and it would have to face the consequences of that power.
Chapter 5: Violent Consequences Unfold as Weak Content Moderation Fuels Deadly Real-World Attacks and Unrest.
Facebook’s problems were not limited to politics in the United States. In Myanmar, a country in Southeast Asia, the platform became a flashpoint for deadly violence. Military leaders and extremist groups used Facebook to spread hate speech against the Rohingya, a Muslim minority group. Harmful rumors and dehumanizing language circulated widely, sparking rage and encouraging brutal attacks. Despite early warnings from activists, Facebook struggled to react. Many of the hateful posts were written in local languages that the company’s poorly staffed moderation teams barely understood. As a result, dangerous messages stayed online, inflaming tensions and contributing to a horrific campaign of violence and ethnic cleansing.
This tragedy exposed the platform’s global reach and its frightening potential. In many countries, Facebook had become the main way people got information, since traditional media or reliable news sources were scarce. Without proper oversight, false claims and hateful lies spread faster than truth. The idea that technology could connect the world and unite communities crashed against the hard reality that it could also tear societies apart. The situation in Myanmar showed that Facebook’s approach—expand first, figure out details later—was irresponsible. It put millions at risk and turned the platform into a weapon.
Facebook’s leaders tried to explain the tragedy as a failure in execution rather than a failure in design. They promised to hire more local language moderators, invest in better detection tools, and form partnerships with human rights groups. But the damage was already done, and the world realized that Facebook’s standards were not universal or effective. Instead, the company had created a system where hateful voices could slip through cracks and cause real harm. This was not some minor misstep. People died because of the platform’s inaction. The incident stained Facebook’s reputation even more, showing that its problems were not limited to political dramas or privacy scandals.
Public trust in Facebook began to wane. Many users felt uneasy, recognizing that the company’s growth-first mentality had frightening consequences. Employees grew concerned too. Some wondered if they were part of something toxic rather than innovative. Meanwhile, Zuckerberg announced he would adopt a wartime mindset, taking more direct control over decisions. He believed stricter leadership could correct the course. But words alone could not erase the horrors witnessed in Myanmar. The company’s promise to fix things sounded hollow to many. Without fundamental changes in how it managed content and valued human safety over profits, Facebook would face even more crises. The world was watching, and so far, the verdict was grim: Facebook’s pursuit of engagement at any cost had gone too far.
Chapter 6: Friends Turn Foes, Competitors Vanish, and Accusations of Anticompetitive Tactics Intensify the Pressure.
As Facebook’s troubles multiplied, powerful voices began calling for its breakup. Chris Hughes, one of Facebook’s original founders, wrote a public letter arguing that the company had grown too big and dangerous. He claimed that its huge influence on communication and commerce was unhealthy for democracy and innovation. Others agreed. Politicians, academics, and activists argued that a company this large should face tighter controls. By crushing rivals or buying them out, Facebook had become a massive monopoly. And monopolies, they warned, can abuse power and limit choice for both users and advertisers.
Over the years, Facebook had bought dozens of smaller companies, including big names like Instagram and WhatsApp. Each new acquisition boosted its empire. Together, these platforms connected billions of people, giving Facebook unprecedented reach and an unimaginable amount of user data. Critics said that by combining these services behind the scenes, Facebook made it almost impossible to separate them later. If the government ever tried to force a breakup, Facebook could argue it was too complicated. Many suspected that this was exactly Zuckerberg’s plan: intertwine the services so tightly that no one could tear them apart.
The call to break up Facebook was not just about size. It was also about fairness. Smaller startups worried that they could never compete with such a giant. The fear was that innovation would wither if one company controlled too much of the online world. Some also believed that a smaller Facebook might manage content more responsibly, without always chasing growth. On top of that, politicians realized that publicly challenging Facebook could win them points with voters tired of Big Tech’s unaccountable power. As the drumbeat for antitrust action grew louder, Facebook tried to defend itself, claiming that it was still a good force in the world and that users could leave anytime they wanted.
Yet, leaving was not so simple. Businesses, families, communities, and organizations relied on Facebook’s networks to stay connected. Advertisers depended on its targeted reach. Its influence touched every corner of life online. Critics said this dependency proved their point: the company had become too important to fail. Lawsuits and investigations loomed. The possibility of government intervention, fines, or forced changes was real. Internally, Facebook knew it had a problem with its public image. No longer could it coast on its reputation as a friendly social network. Now, it was widely seen as a profit-driven giant that smothered competition. The tension between growth and responsibility had never been more obvious, and the world waited to see if someone would finally put a leash on this digital titan.
Chapter 7: Desperate Attempts to Rebrand as a Free Speech Champion Fail to Restore Lost Trust.
Faced with mounting criticism, Facebook’s leadership tried a new tactic: they painted themselves as defenders of free speech. Zuckerberg began meeting with politicians and journalists, hoping to convince them that Facebook was a neutral platform that respected all views. He argued that strict moderation would silence important voices and that the company’s hands-off approach kept the internet open and democratic. With powerful figures in Washington, he stressed that if the U.S. overregulated Facebook, Chinese tech giants might dominate the global scene. This argument aimed to make Facebook seem like a patriotic defender of American values.
But this free speech stance landed poorly with many critics. To them, it looked like a convenient excuse to avoid taking responsibility for harmful content. They noted that when politicians spread lies or hate, Facebook stood by and allowed it, claiming it was too important for people to see both sides. Meanwhile, hate groups, conspiracy theorists, and extremists found a welcoming environment for their dangerous ideas. Rather than shielding honest debate, critics argued, Facebook’s approach flooded people with confusion and anger, making it harder to find reliable information.
Zuckerberg tried to clarify his position with a high-profile speech at Georgetown University, recalling moments in history when free speech mattered. He suggested that Facebook was like a modern-day town square. Unfortunately, many people saw this comparison as absurd. The platform was run by a private company profiting off user data, not by a civic institution protecting citizens’ rights. Activists and scholars found these justifications shallow. After all, free speech did not mean giving equal weight to lies or allowing people to be targeted by hate. The public wanted Facebook to do better at removing harmful content, not to hide behind lofty ideals.
As criticism poured in, it became clear that the attempt to paint Facebook as a hero of free expression was failing. Many users, political leaders, and advocacy groups had grown tired of hearing excuses. They saw the platform as too powerful and too unwilling to change. Instead of looking like a champion of liberty, Facebook appeared to be an enormous, unfeeling machine that refused to protect its community from harm. While some loyal supporters agreed with Zuckerberg, the overall mistrust deepened. The company’s image problem worsened, and it struggled to find a path forward that balanced freedom, profit, and public safety.
Chapter 8: Influencing Leaders, Cozying Up to Power, and Struggling to Contain a Growing Backlash.
Desperate to stay relevant and influential, Facebook worked hard behind the scenes to strengthen ties with powerful leaders. Executives met with top politicians, including President Trump. In these conversations, Zuckerberg flattered their social media prowess, reminding them how useful Facebook could be for campaigns and political messaging. The strategy was to persuade leaders not to push harsh regulations. But while this may have won some short-term favor, it also made many Facebook employees uneasy. They felt their company was becoming too friendly with people who spread harmful lies or dangerous claims.
Those concerned employees watched in dismay as Facebook claimed it was balancing everyone’s interests. They knew that money, political influence, and corporate pride shaped decisions behind closed doors. The public rarely saw the careful dance performed between Facebook’s executives and world leaders. Yet, when news leaked, outrage followed. Critics argued that the company was playing favorites, bending rules to please people in power. This behavior painted Facebook not as a neutral stage for debate, but rather a player in the political game, choosing winners and losers based on its own interests.
At the same time, other tech platforms started to show that moderation was possible. When Twitter began labeling or even hiding posts that spread harmful falsehoods, people asked why Facebook could not do the same. The longer Facebook refused to follow suit, the more it looked like it cared less about truth and more about keeping big-name users happy. This unwillingness to act angered not just everyday users, but also lawmakers who had once seen Facebook as a partner in digital progress. Now, those lawmakers began to question the company’s promises and demanded more accountability.
All the while, public trust kept eroding. Newspapers, television reports, and documentaries highlighted Facebook’s failures, showing how easily bad actors turned the platform into a tool of division. The company’s attempts at damage control came across as half-hearted. People wondered if Facebook had become too big to really change, too entangled with governments and advertisers to put ordinary users first. Employees debated their roles, some even quitting in frustration. The company that once promised to bring the world closer together was now scrambling to justify its decisions. Dark clouds of criticism gathered, and the stage was set for the next chapters of turmoil and adjustment.
Chapter 9: Pandemic Pressures, Social Upheavals, and Reluctant Changes to Content Policies Test Facebook’s Resolve.
In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic brought new challenges. People needed clear, accurate information about health and safety. Yet, misinformation flooded Facebook. False cures, wild conspiracy theories, and dangerous claims popped up everywhere. The company tried harder this time, removing some medical myths and warning users about misleading posts. Still, when powerful figures made shocking statements—like suggesting toxic household cleaners as a cure—Facebook hesitated. The platform’s rule against harmful falsehoods clashed with its desire not to anger influential leaders. Users grew frustrated that even during a global health crisis, Facebook struggled to enforce basic truth standards.
Around the same time, protests over racial injustice and police brutality filled the streets. People turned to Facebook to organize marches, share videos, and voice anger. Many posts were peaceful and important, but others were inflammatory or hateful, calling for violence against protestors. When another large social platform, Twitter, began taking action against such content, Facebook again lagged behind. Inside the company, employees staged a virtual walkout, demanding that management set a higher standard. Outside, advertisers publicly boycotted the platform, frustrated by its unwillingness to act decisively against hate and misinformation.
The combined weight of the pandemic, protests, and advertiser pressure forced Facebook to reconsider some policies. It announced more aggressive steps against violent groups organizing on the platform. It also started adding labels or warnings to politically charged content. However, these measures often felt like baby steps rather than bold action. Critics said the company only reacted when its profit margins were threatened. Many wondered why it took a full-blown crisis for Facebook to show any willingness to improve. The company’s slow and reluctant changes left the impression that it still prioritized business interests over the well-being of its community.
Amid all this turmoil, the 2020 U.S. election loomed. Facebook promised it would do better this time, carefully watching for foreign interference and trying to reduce the spread of harmful lies. Though it took some steps, doubts remained. The previous election’s mistakes lingered in people’s minds. As events unfolded, including the violent storming of the U.S. Capitol building in January 2021, it became clear that Facebook’s efforts were still not enough. False claims that the election was stolen circulated widely in private groups, and extremist voices found digital comfort zones. At last, after a terrible insurrection, Facebook suspended the outgoing president’s account. But this dramatic step came too late for many, who felt the platform’s failures had already contributed to an unprecedented crisis.
Chapter 10: A Complex Legacy, an Uncertain Future, and the Question of Whether Reform Is Possible.
Today, Facebook’s journey stands as a complicated story of success, controversy, and moral confusion. It began as a clever idea in a college dorm and grew into a global empire connecting billions of people. Along the way, it made huge profits, shaped culture, and influenced political life. But this great power came at a price. Misinformation, harassment, hate speech, election meddling, and violence have all found a home on the platform. Despite occasional improvements, Facebook has struggled to fully acknowledge or address the darker side of its influence.
The company’s leaders remain under pressure from governments, activists, and users to do more. Some call for breaking Facebook into smaller parts. Others demand stricter moderation rules, clearer privacy protections, and meaningful transparency about how content decisions are made. Employees still debate which path to take: hold firm to free speech ideals or impose stricter controls to protect truth and safety. Investors watch closely, worried that too much regulation might limit growth. The future is murky, and everyone wants to know if Facebook can truly change.
As new competitors rise and younger generations flock to other platforms, Facebook’s once-infallible image continues to fade. The company itself has rebranded, shifting more toward virtual reality or other frontiers, hoping to escape the past’s haunting shadows. Whether these new directions will help or hurt remains to be seen. Some believe that fresh technologies and policies might allow Facebook to rebuild trust. Others worry that, without a genuine shift in priorities, the same mistakes will play out in different arenas.
In the end, Facebook’s story asks an important question: can a company so large, so influential, and so devoted to capturing people’s attention ever put the public interest first? The platform has altered how societies communicate, how businesses operate, and how politics unfold. Its legacy includes connecting old friends, spreading vital information, and supporting meaningful movements. But it also includes harming communities, sowing confusion, and fueling anger. The world watches closely as Facebook’s leaders try to balance competing demands. Will they find a way to truly fix what’s broken? Or will Facebook remain a cautionary tale of how a quest for growth and engagement can spiral out of control? The answer may shape the digital future for us all.
All about the Book
An Ugly Truth delves into the hidden challenges of social media giants, exploring misinformation, privacy concerns, and their societal impact. This essential read unveils the complexities of technology and its influences in today’s world.
Sheera Frenkel and Cecilia Kang are investigative journalists, renowned for their expertise in technology and policy, bringing to light the unseen narratives behind influential platforms and their societal implications.
Journalists, Social Media Managers, Policy Makers, Cybersecurity Experts, Digital Marketing Professionals
Reading, Technology Advocacy, Debating, Researching Social Issues, Engaging in Online Communities
Misinformation, Privacy Violations, Impact of Social Media on Society, Regulatory Challenges in Technology
We must critically examine the platforms that shape our world, or risk losing our ability to shape it ourselves.
Barack Obama, Tim Berners-Lee, Sheryl Sandberg
Pulitzer Prize for Reporting, National Book Award Finalist, Edward R. Murrow Award
1. How did Facebook’s policies shape user trust levels? #2. What role does misinformation play in social media? #3. Why is transparency crucial for tech companies’ success? #4. How can algorithms impact public opinion dynamics? #5. What challenges arise in regulating online content effectively? #6. In what ways does corporate culture affect ethical decisions? #7. How did whistleblowers influence Facebook’s operational changes? #8. What dynamics exist between profit motives and public safety? #9. How can users protect themselves from digital misinformation? #10. Why is user data privacy a pressing concern today? #11. How does Facebook’s history inform current practices? #12. What lessons can be learned from tech company failures? #13. How should governments approach digital platform governance? #14. What strategies can improve accountability in social media? #15. How do internal policies affect external perceptions? #16. Why is it important to address hate speech online? #17. How can community engagement enhance platform responsibility? #18. What impact does global operation have on content moderation? #19. How do user behaviors shape platform policies? #20. What steps can enhance dialogue around digital ethics?
An Ugly Truth book, Sheera Frenkel books, Cecilia Kang books, Facebook misinformation, social media censorship, tech industry critique, online hate speech, disinformation in media, journalism and technology, social media accountability, impact of social media, book about Facebook
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062950996
https://audiofire.in/wp-content/uploads/covers/1076.png
https://www.youtube.com/@audiobooksfire
audiofireapplink