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

Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 734 posts

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#41

Post by CPLX »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #34
CPLX wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing as how the actual mechanics of the leak were orchestrated by an attorney, and the documents were sent to an enforcement division of the Federal Government, it would be a pretty fair guess that they have considered it and are on solid legal ground.

Are they operating pro bono? If not, they may simply take the case because it will generate a lot of work for them, and it’s likely that such a public case could attract plenty of donations to fund the cause. Having argued a high profile case against Facebook is a huge reputation boost for a lawyer.

> Are they operating pro bono?

They are a public interest non-profit: https://whistlebloweraid.org/vision/

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#42

Post by travoc »

prvc wrote: post #29

What concrete information has been revealed that implicates Facebook in illegal behavior? How does the "whistleblower"'s stated desires wrt goverment-mandated moderation standards differ from those articulated by representatives of the company itself? Such a framework would shift liability away from the company, possibly reduce their moderation load, and create a significant barrier for entry for potential competitor…

The whistleblower is taking a huge legal risk here. I wonder if the Wall Street Journal has really explained the consequences to the leaker.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#44

Post by newfonewhodis »

prvc wrote: post #29

What concrete information has been revealed that implicates Facebook in illegal behavior? How does the "whistleblower"'s stated desires wrt goverment-mandated moderation standards differ from those articulated by representatives of the company itself? Such a framework would shift liability away from the company, possibly reduce their moderation load, and create a significant barrier for entry for potential competitor…

> What concrete information has been revealed that implicates Facebook in illegal behavior?

I'll leave it up to the legal system to decide what FB has done that's currently illegal. However, you don't just blow the whistle when you think laws are being broken. Sometimes you do it to start a discussion that can change the laws.

It's clear from the Facebook Files stories and documents that FB has known about the effects of their product on consumers (especially kids) and 1. lied to the public 2. lied to lawmakers 3. didn't change the product in ways that positively impacted kids.

That's obviously messed up and is not (afaik, ianal) covered under current US laws. I do strongly believe that it should. Platforms have responsibility, and S230 entirely takes the responsibility away from them.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#45

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

Me1000 wrote: post #32
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a good question. Leaking internal company documents doesn’t automatically grant someone whistleblower protection. She appears to be trying an angle where she claims that Facebook’s activities have harmed shareholders in an attempt to capture some degree of whistleblower protection, but that’s a huge stretch given that she’s arguing they made choices in the interest of profits without violating any actual laws.…

It's not really an "angle", she worked with a whistleblower protection organization and she specifically gave these documents to the SEC, filing 8 complaints with the regulatory organization. All of that communication is protected. I don't know what the legal implications for leaking to the press are, but that's where her exposure is.

Her bigger risk is probably the employment angle. Hard to picture hiring this person except if you're 100% certain your company's behavior aligns with her morals, and you can't find anyone else. Even for people who generally agree with her view on Facebook employing her presents a pretty serious known risk at this point.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#48

Post by flandish »

prvc wrote: post #29

What concrete information has been revealed that implicates Facebook in illegal behavior? How does the "whistleblower"'s stated desires wrt goverment-mandated moderation standards differ from those articulated by representatives of the company itself? Such a framework would shift liability away from the company, possibly reduce their moderation load, and create a significant barrier for entry for potential competitor…

What I don't understand is how this is different than Nike making shoes with child labor overseas in the "global south", etc. That harms children, for profit.

Facebook is a for profit organization. This is the rule with organizations like this. If given enough time, size, and lack of shielding, any corporation will eventually cause harm in some way.

We seem to have less focus on "Nike whistleblowers" or similar, you get the idea.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#49

Post by rightbyte »

shmatt wrote: post #36

There is something that doesn't sit right with me about the whistleblower. Yes, she is a data scientist which gives her many many extra points. But, she was a PM for 2 years in FAANG. Her actual scope of the what was going on in FB as a huge org, as she's trying to comment on (the "I want to fix FB" quotes from 60 minutes) Everyone I know who works in FAANG, FB specifically, and PMs even more specifically, really hav…

Maybe she read the internal docs and meeting notes? Most employees wouldn't notice an proverbial elephant farm in another department aslong as it didn't involve them directly. Even if it was advertized in mails and on billboards ...
Post reply on HN