Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 627 posts

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#231

Post by danjac »

55555 wrote: post #119

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…

Well, FB hired Nick Clegg, whose name is a shorthand in British politics for "I will betray all my promises and principles for a paycheck". So maybe they just assume that anyone who goes to work for them is in it for the money and the "wokeness" is merely performative.

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#232

Post by manquer »

_3u10 wrote: post #185
bjt wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're trying to optimize for engagement AND avoid rewarding divisive content or misinformation, then yeah, that's complex and maybe impossible. But as Haugen points out in her 60 Minutes interview, they don't _have_ to optimize for engagement above all else. They have tools to drive down divisiveness and disinformation. They just choose to leave them turned off most of the time.

wouldn’t turning down divisiveness require picking a unified POV? What if the unified POV is not the one she wants, would she still support it? People seemed pretty upset that FB was used to unify a majority for Trump, I mean that’s when all the complaints really started.

There is no need for any unified Point of View. From UX changes ( stop showing like/view counts) there are a ton of things a platform can do if they don't want to optimize for engagement, it will be financially damaging to do so, their revenue and stock price will drop no company will do it, but it not a hard problem technically.

Optimizing for engagement inevitably leads to toxic and unhealthy ecosystem sooner or later.

Issues with facebook and the right wing becoming more extreme long before Trump became mainstream ( perhaps it was always there). There was lot of concern noise during the early Tea Party movement in 2010s. There was a lot of toxic content when Obama became president.

Facebook started as tool to rate looks of female students in Harvard , I don't think there was ever a time when Facebook was not toxic.

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#233

Post by no_butterscotch »

55555 wrote: post #119

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…

> Facebook is a cancer on society IMO.

It's interesting, I know a bunch of people who work there as I'm sure many on this site do.

Nonetheless, none of them have a problem with Facebook or its role in our society.

I don't know what to make of it really.

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#234

Post by donw »

aaomidi wrote: post #176
donw wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do silicon valley companies not screen for intensity of political views during job interviews in order to prevent issues like this? It would seem that they actively select for it. > It would seem like it would be better for business to just not let people join the organization if they're relatively likely to one day go on a moral crusade. To be fair: Blue Team straight up hit the panic button when Trump was elected…

Could you expand on "His "Law and Order" tweets during all the rioting were absolutely pathetic."?

Sure, why not.

During the riots, Trump kept tweeting out "LAW AND ORDER!", like a crippled old man furious at the neighborhood kids for trashing his roses. He's angry, but doesn't have the means to do anything about it.

This made Trump look weak and impotent. All he did was hide in his bunker and shake his tiny fist on Twitter while chaos raged.

The rioters placed Trump in a dilemma action. Smart. If Trump does nothing, he looks weak. If he responds with sufficient force to quell the riots, he looks like a tyrant.

Off the top of my head, a better play would have been something like: "As President, I am bound by the Constitution to respect the sovereignty of each State. To any state Governor that requests assistance to restore peace, I will put all necessary Federal resources under your direct command."

Repeat variants of that, over and over. An offer of assistance demonstrating clear respect for the Constitution.

This very diplomatically throws the ball to mostly blue-state governors. Now they either have to be seen as doing nothing, or as collaborating with Trump. Moreover, if they do accept assistance and pull a Kent State, it's on their heads.

And I'm some clown on the internet. I imagine somebody that really does statecraft could do better.

Trump is a showman. Good at reality TV. Clearly didn't understand how to lead a country.

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#237

Post by Grieving »

ethanbond wrote: post #111
kcplate wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I am of the minority opinion, but I damn sure was never worried about a bunch of selfie-taking unarmed rednecks destroying the United States of America. My faith in this country goes a little deeper than that.

People are much less concerned about the unarmed rednecks taking selfies than they’re concerned about the armed folks searching the grounds for certain representatives, the people planting pipe bombs around DC, and anti-government militias comprised heavily of former military and law enforcement. Oh yeah, said militia members stashed guns at a nearby hotel (according to their own testimony and video footage). This co…

You're talking about a small group of Oath Keepers in an otherwise peaceful protest. But I'm curious, why do you think Stewart Rhodes was never arrested? Would it make more sense given the context that the boogaloos behind the Whitmer kidnapping plot turned out to be FBI agents, as did the leaders of other right-wing groups including the Proud Boys and Atomwaffen Division? Who does the right-wing terrorism scare serve?

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#238

Post by JumpCrisscross »

erklik wrote: post #100
snowwrestler wrote: post #87

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…

> Yes I know Zuckerberg cannot be ousted by typical corporate maneuvering Why is that? I am not aware of Facebook's corporate structure so I am curious. - Yes, this is a LMGTFY question, but I find that people can often provide a better answer, that's easier to understand especially when the question is more of a curiosity rather something I wish to find the answer of rapidly.

I wonder if there is a simple fix to this: ban super-voting shares for social media companies over a certain size and age. Public, or private.

Maybe the core of the problem is Zuckerberg using Facebook to accumulate power. Not the company per se.

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#239

Post by sandworm101 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #220
sandworm101 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> it's just about speculation. As opposed to all the other reasons people buy publicly-traded shares?

I thought the power to affect corporate decision making was an important part of investing. Apparently not.

That power is still there. By selling their non-voting shares investors lower their price, which has knock-on impacts on the corporation. What is lost is the power to directly make corporate decisions.

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#240

Post by stevetodd »

xqcgrek2 wrote: post #47

This individual is not a 'whistleblower'. Nothing revealed is illegal or fraudulent.

> Scott Pelley: What is the legal theory behind going to the SEC? What laws are you alleging have been broken?

> John Tye: As a publicly-traded company, Facebook is required to not lie to its investors or even withhold material information. So, the SEC regularly brings enforcement actions, alleging that companies like Facebook and others are making material misstatements and omissions that affect investors adversely.

Post reply on HN