161–170 of 627 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn’t the Senate Intelligence Committee release a bipartisan report that concluded Russia did indeed attempt interfere with our election? How was it a bogus story?
The Committee did indeed release a bipartisan report making those assertions. Their assertions were bogus because no evidence is cited anywhere in the report. Claims of secret evidence are not evidence.
Facebook is going to become a hollowed out shell of itself if they do not change. They’ll get hollowed out by litigation, legislation, investors, or all of the above. They need new leadership. The tactics that got them here will not carry them further. There are tons of examples of the positive impact of new leadership, on companies like Apple, Microsoft, Uber, Disney, Ford, etc. And there are certainly plenty of exa…
What litigation or legislation would hollow out Facebook? I would like to see stronger legislation around consumer data privacy, but that would only marginally reduce Facebook advertising revenue.
Any action that gets Zuckerberg into a deposition or courtroom, i.e., under oath, is potential trouble for Facebook.
Testimony before Congress is not the same.
I'm glad she shared what she shared. Facebook is a cancer on society IMO. In many cases, although perhaps not this one, whistleblowers have had an extremely active and political Twitter account when hired, or are literally being hired _because_ of their wokeness. Do silicon valley companies not screen for intensity of political views during job interviews in order to prevent issues like this? They certainly don't see…
Is it me or have things shifted from “prevent what you say online from being traced back to you as much as possible as it could be used against you” to “what you say online is now part of your resume and ‘leaving it blank’ is a ‘bad look’”? I’m … not young and follow the “blank slate” approach. Was just wondering if the world had changed while I wasn’t paying attention.
I don’t think anything really changed there — those of us who think their opinions are worth other people hearing about (and I’m generally in that camp) have been around since time immemorial, and I doubt we’re growing as a percentage.
It’s just that social media has provided us a big new platform, much more visible than Usenet or whatever. I think generally companies don’t care what you write online as long as it won’t come back to bite the company.
The biggest conspiracy theory and insurrection attempt was the fake Russian conspiracy and the conspiracy to affect the election outcome conveniently described by time magazine. I'm completely uninterested in a ragtag group of curly haired shirtless weirdos who stormed congress. I am concerned about large corporations, rich interest groups and large multi media conglomerates that have actual power to affect political…
I thought that foreign manipulation of the 2016 election was well in fact documented. If you don’t believe that the Russian government interfered with the election, you must at least believe that a private company located in the UK did so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
The claims were made without evidence. The origins of the claim ... The Steele dossier... Is itself fake.
I will cite the new York times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/business/media/spooked-pr...
Quote:
> Now the glow has faded — from both the dossier and its promoters. Russia, as Mr. Steele asserted, did try to influence the 2016 election. But many of the dossier’s most explosive claims — like a salacious “pee” tape featuring Mr. Trump or a supposed meeting in Prague between Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former attorney, and Russian operatives — have never materialized or have been proved false. The founders of Alfa Bank, a major Russian financial institution, are suing Fusion GPS, claiming the firm libeled them. (Fusion has denied the claims.) Plans for a film based on Mr. Steele’s adventures appear dead. > > Beneath the dossier’s journey from media obsession to slush pile lies a broader and more troubling story. Today, private spying has boomed into a renegade, billion-dollar industry, one that is increasingly invading our privacy, profiting from deception and manipulating the news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a perfectly legitimate concern and it's a shame you're being downvoted. Anyone who is concerned about fake news and misinformation should be appalled by the media's treatment of the bogus Russian interference story.
Didn’t the Senate Intelligence Committee release a bipartisan report that concluded Russia did indeed attempt interfere with our election? How was it a bogus story?
That is false. Stop trying to spin it.
Even the new York times agrees the claims against Trump were false... Wake up.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/business/media/spooked-pr...
Now the glow has faded — from both the dossier and its promoters. Russia, as Mr. Steele asserted, did try to influence the 2016 election. But many of the dossier’s most explosive claims — like a salacious “pee” tape featuring Mr. Trump or a supposed meeting in Prague between Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former attorney, and Russian operatives — have never materialized or have been proved false. The founders of Alfa Bank, a major Russian financial institution, are suing Fusion GPS, claiming the firm libeled them. (Fusion has denied the claims.) Plans for a film based on Mr. Steele’s adventures appear dead.
Beneath the dossier’s journey from media obsession to slush pile lies a broader and more troubling story. Today, private spying has boomed into a renegade, billion-dollar industry, one that is increasingly invading our privacy, profiting from deception and manipulating the news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No but what Facebook is doing is harmful, and what she is doing is embarrassing to the company and to those who work for them. For all I know, what she did is illegal. But I'm glad she did it, it was very brave and she puts herself at a lot of risk by doing it. If Facebook goes after her, they will undoubtedly get bad press and encourage government regulation and possibly even antitrust action. Facebook and other soc…
You didn’t read the article. By law, she is allowed to whistleblow and share internal documents.
Regardless, my whole point is that what she is doing is a positive and I salute her for it.
Also, just saw this (which says what I was saying, that going to the press can put her at legal peril): https://www.npr.org/2021/09/30/1042012393/facebook-whistlebl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fact, it is perfectly legal in most of US. It is on paper illegal in California, but I haven’t seen this law actually being enforced.
Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I have a relative who processes digital intakes for a CA ACLU chapter, and they get a huge number of interview-related complaints, which get referred directly to legal assistance who are interested in such cases. My opinion is we likely don’t hear about it because each case is small, and companies have no incentive to publicize settlements.
Facebook was beyond fixing the day it was founded. Zuckerberg is one of the least ethical operators of a large company that I'm aware of and the company reflects that in every way possible. Fixing Facebook would mean removing Zuckerberg and that's not going to happen, so I applaud the whistleblower stepping forward but I think they're hopelessly naive if they believe that this will really lead to meaningful change.
In fact it is quiet telling that none of the FB cofounders were there long enough, probably because they saw who he is early on.
We have seen this story before. Person joins Facebook thinking they can "help". Then quits. Facebook is a public company whose purpose is serve advertisers. Online ads is the only way they can generate revenue. It is not some woo-woo about connecting the world, giving people a voice, or whatever. That's what the internet enables, not a single website controlled by someone else. Facebook tries to take credit for what…
Sure there is: advertising. It's the root cause of nearly all evils in the internet today. Facebook itself is merely a symptom of the advertiser problem. The web and the internet will never be fixed until we get rid of the advertisers. Either we ban advertising or we spread ad blocking technology far and wide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To expand on the sibling comment, Facebook has two classes of shares. Class A shares have one vote and are the shares that are traded on stock exchanges. Class B shares get 10 votes each and are held by Zuckerberg and friends. Zuckerberg has enough Class B shares that he really can't be outvoted by other investors.
> Facebook has two classes of shares I had no idea companies could legally create vastly unequal schemes like that. How do people even find out about things like this? Is this information available somewhere? Impossible to make good investment decisions without this sort of knowledge.