391–400 of 627 posts
I heard that she may be the first billionaire whistleblower, when given a percentage of the fine assigned to Facebook.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A few years ago, some bad actors were successful in convincing Congress of a crazy conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ... They used a platform called The New York Times to spread their lies. Citation needed that this was a knowing conspiracy as opposed to bad intelligence. Setting that aside, there's a big difference between an institution like the NY Times getting it wrong on occ…
What is the difference between bad intelligence vs the average conspiracy theorist? It is all just bad intelligence someone telling someone else "data" that they then "trust" reflects reality when in reality it doesn't.
Conspiracy theories are often just grift. And the same thing applies, only on a bigger scale.
Iraq and Afghanistan were immensely profitable for certain actors - some of whom are well known, some less so.
You can't fix a product that works exactly as it was intended to.
Yeah, i mean just taking a look at the product I realize that it was designed for this kind of behavior. The feed looks like a spitoon that everybody disrespects. And the comments are continuously recycled in a memory drain, in order to provoke new outrageous reactions. The page spams you to connect, react and count the reactions. The focus is not on reading, but on acting like an emotional toddler.
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.
I heard that she may be the first billionaire whistleblower, when given a percentage of the fine assigned to Facebook.
Well that certainly changes our perception of her motivations. She claims to care about making social media better but probably just wants an easy payout.
> She claims to care about making social media better but probably just wants an easy payout.
Why do you assume this? Do you know her, or are you just using your own moral character as a reference point?
>Frances Haugen: So, you know, you have your phone. You might see only 100 pieces of content if you sit and scroll on for, you know, five minutes. But Facebook has thousands of options it could show you. >The algorithm picks from those options based on the kind of content you've engaged with the most in the past. This is the primary reason I stopped using Facebook. I did everything I could to signal I did not wish to…
People in your social bubble clearly don't care too much about major personal events, but do care about politics. It's what your friends have in common, and what Facebook will deem important. You are just a statistical anomaly.
I think misinformation and conspiracy theories on these platforms are a huge problem. A few years ago, some bad actors were successful in convincing Congress of a crazy conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The results were far-reaching. The US violated the UN charter and launched a disastrous war in Iraq where millions of Iraqis were killed, injured and displaced. They used a platfor…
It's called power. Journalists are people, and desire power just as much as the next politician, CEO or movie star. Unlike those, journalists get that power by controlling broad narratives and having disproportionate control over the free flow of information.
It's an immense power that has evolved alongside modern democratic society and we have developed strong accountability mechanisms. Strong peer pressure and integrity requirements control that journalistic power.
Social media and the internet are recent invention that lack that evolved institutional and social framework. They are stripping power from the elites specialized with controlling that flow, and putting control in the hands of tech firms and anonymous "content optimization engineers" that make the algorithms work. They are only accountable to the bottom line.
So yes, it's a power struggle and huge double standards at work, only we shouldn't assume every revolution and upheaval of the traditional social order works for the benefit of the people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From where do you get the notion that something illegal needs to take place for someone to qualify as "whistleblower"? First time I encounter this idea.
(Disclaimer: IANAL) A "whistleblower" in the USA is a legal term of art used to describe someone who reports wrong-doing to the government. The conduct being disclosed doesn't necessarily have to be explicitly illegal, but in order to be considered a whistleblower under the law, the information has to be disclosed to the appropriate government agency (i.e., reporting wrong-doing to a private organization or going pub…
You can be a whistleblower even if US or state regulation doesn't explicitly classify you as one.
This can only be temporary and it's inevitable for this whole thing break down once there is disagreements. All we need is one issue and the whole thing collapses catastrophically.