81–90 of 734 posts
What are the potential legal ramifications for the whistleblower?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-frances-...
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…
In the 60 minutes interview her lawyer cites part of Dodd-Frank that protects whistleblowers going to the SEC. Their position is that the documents are material to investors re:valuation and that Facebook was negligent by not providing it. https://youtu.be/_Lx5VmAdZSI?t=596
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…
But, on a larger level, I see several comments that seem to be implying that talking about the wrongdoing of one company isn't valid unless we talk about the wrongdoing of all companies at the same time.
I think that argument is faulty. If the argument were good, then it wouldn't be possible to talk about any company's wrongdoing because you'll always be leaving others out of the conversation.
Now do the same for CNN, Fox News and every other sophisticated media company who have all created Skinner boxes to get more eyeballs. The entire system needs a hard examination.
This is straight-up deflection. It makes sense to start somewhere, so why not the biggest player in town? That would be Facebook, with billions of active users. None of those cable channels are even close to 100s of millions of viewers.
Otherwise, you are just whacking moles, and pretending that one day there would be no more moles...
Or rather, you indeed are OK with a constant number of moles indefinitely. That's OK. But the premise of the parent is obviously that the moles are growing too numerous and are not staying constant at all...
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…
Well, yes and no. While as a PM (or IC) she'd be primarily working on a scoped area of work, the reality is also that she likely didn't come to learn all this on her own. At nearly any large tech company it's pretty easy to get in touch with someone on another team and learn more about their work, etc. The fact that she's been able to get all this context and significant supporting documentation points to her not hav…
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…
The obvious options: - she went in with an agenda from the beginning intending to get this stuff - she went in, discovered that the sociopathic pattern she'd been warned about and had a nagging doubt about was worse than she though, got the religion, and got the stuff
As an aside,
Facebook hires smart. Both of these and her success are consistent with a smart and motivated person. Isn't that what we're supposed to be selecting for? Isn't drive and high functioning what Facebook is filtering for?
More: isn't setting aside moral misgivings and agonizing, in pursuit of achievement of your mission, EXACTLY what Facebook is trying to filter for...?
Always a shame when the sword cuts the wielder!
But back to the point: does it matter which of these is true?
Not to me, or to democracy; the bottom line is that it takes an action like this to force the endless malfeasance, amorality, and actual destructive behavior into public consciousness. Not least when fighting a machine that seeks to stifle criticism and control narrative: this is indeed exactly what she is bringing receipts on.
The supposition seems to be that she is a plant, sent on a mission to bring down Facebook.
Let's say that's the case.
I have no issue with that, as Facebook belongs down.
I don't care who paid for this skullduggery—especially if it's the US taxpayer.
The GOP has done everything it can to curtail the ability of the state to challenge the power of accumulated capital.
I would applaud a game leveling asymmetric warfare style methods to do the state's work.
Indeed, this would be a remarkable and rare return on taxpayer money, should it bring about the dismantling of their profoundly caustic monopoly.
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.…
I seriously doubt shareholders agree with her angle. > her best chance is to hope that Facebook will simply try to minimize the legal issue to avoid making her into too much of a martyr I suspect the opposite. They will attempt to make an example of her to dissuade subsequent whistleblowers. Social media has a short attention span and forgets its "martyrs" within days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Potentially severe for leaking company IP. There are explicit legal protections for whistleblowing to the SEC but I don't believe there is anything protecting one's right to go to journalists with privileged information. However, Facebook would be 100% insane to press legal charges because that just drags this on even longer and reinforce the perception that they're bullies
I don't think I agree. If they don't enforce a precedent of consequences for leaking confidential documents, it will be a complete breakdown of operational security (everyone will feel free to leak memos and documents).
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…
What's your point here? This lady is a PRODUCT manger and heads up the entire product, in this case Civic Integrity, which was directly charged with tamping down hate on the platform related to civic engagement. She is not a PROJECT manager like what you deal with on your engineering team. She is by definition an expert on this segment of Facebook and you're dismissing her wrongly for being a "PM". She's a Harvard MB…
Also, a Facebook PM is not a senior role. While she does have a lot of experience, I doubt she led anything significant at FB with a PM role. With her experience I would expect her to be at least senior PM if not Principal. Probably didn't do well in the interview or maybe concerns about lack of promotions anywhere she worked.
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…
Are you arguing in good faith here?