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

221–230 of 734 posts

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

#221

Post by boringg »

impostervt wrote: post #17

What are the potential legal ramifications for the whistleblower?

Depends how she play it. From a work perspective she sadly might have a tough time getting employed at other companies. It would depend on how she plays the next bit though. That said I wouldn't be surprised if theres a book that comes out of this given the amount of media already surrounding this.

I am curious what her longer term goals are - she is clearly intelligent, has solid PM experience in the industry and is certainly aware of what she is doing. I'm guessing there is a strategy of some sort at play - maybe leading an NFP for better corporate practices. Best of luck either way hope this changes things in a meaningful way!

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

#222

Post by shmatt »

aardvarkr wrote: post #85
alfalfasprout wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

FYI the lady was the Product Manager and ran the entire Civic Engagement group. She's not just a project manager working on a team of devs.

>FYI the lady was the Product Manager and ran the entire Civic Engagement group. She's not just a project manager working on a team of devs.

See, i'd just like to hear more of this

* How many direct reports did she have?

* What was her official FB level?

* What level of management were in meetings with her?

* Who did she directly report into?

All really good context most people are ignoring

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

#223

Post by mdoms »

farcebook wrote: post #191
ozzythecat wrote: post #141

I don’t personally use FB and don’t have a very favorable view of their products. I would, however, like to see the same level scrutiny applied to the general American media, especially the news media. FB has come in and started eating their lunch. There’s a deeper problem here, and it feels more like the powers that he want to take down FB. I’m not denying any allegation made against FB, but why is it that Fox News,…

One, most of the mainstream news has at least basic editorial processes in place that do a rudimentary check on truthiness. Facebook, along with some of the sketchier news outlets, are the opposite: they profit off (and optimize for) disinformation. Two, it's a matter of scale. Facebook reaches a far larger audience and has far more detail into their preferences and can nano-target personalized stories for them and c…

> One, most of the mainstream news has at least basic editorial processes in place that do a rudimentary check on truthiness.

Come on, man. There are just so many counter examples, from the "paper of record" NYT (1619 Project) to MSNBC (Russia nonsense) to Fox News (literally everything) to Rolling Stone (A Rape on Campus) I could sit here all day listing outright lies and untruths published in the pages of mainstream media outlets in order to push an agenda.

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

#224

Post by Graffur »

the_snooze wrote: post #161
koheripbal wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At minimum it needs to be someone who is aware of the company strategy. She simply doesnt have any relevant knowledge. This is all politics.

"Oh, they're a Corporal? They don't know the strategy." "Oh, they're a General? They don't know what's actually in the trenches."

Question both then?

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

#225

Post by vladd »

jimkleiber wrote: post #183
woeirua wrote: post #77

I think a lot of people are choosing to ignore that a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values. For example, Standard Oil did not break any laws in its ruthless consolidation of the nascent oil industry. In fact, it exploited the law to allow i…

I really appreciate this point. I often see it as written rules (laws) and unwritten rules (ethics). If something breaks the unwritten rules we have about how people are supposed to interact with each other, then we often codify that rule into law. Many people will say "I didn't break the law" but where many people would say that person did break an unwritten law. > There should be no question, that what FB is doing…

If a poem (or book) makes 10% of its readers more likely to become geniuses and contribute to solving world problems such as cancer, but 0.1% of its readers are more likely to commit suicide, should that book be banned by law?

Today's online society is based on posts created by content creators around the world, where algorithms can barely scratch the surface at interpreting their content, humans don't scale in reviewing every post, but statistics such as the above could be arguably inferred easily based on a combination of engagement (click/scrolls) data and attrition/session-revisits numbers.

Which is really problematic, because codifying into law rules and punishments based on aggregated outcomes and impact to us as a society (or to society sub-segments such as teens) makes it a very hard process to navigate between censorship vs. positive overall outcome vs. specific negative outcome on some outliers.

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

#226

Post by your_a_poor »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #45
Me1000 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You must be a poor. She doesn't need a job, she worked in SV for a decade at 4 startups that went unicorn. Her yearly bonus at FB was probably 7 figures.

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

#228

Post by mcguire »

asdff wrote: post #115
hunterb123 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify, can you specify exactly what law you would like made? What do you want to be done exactly ? I would rather take the stance of feed algorithms and moderation logs be PUBLICLY available. Transparency instead of censorship.

Treat addictive social media companies like addictive cigarette companies. Lets see some huge warning labels about how mentally harmful it is to continue scrolling on facebook right on the first result where its unavoidable to see. Lets tax the hell out of social media companies to generate local revenue just like sin taxes. It won't be a huge change but it will be a great starting point and will come with revenue th…

I'm not sure this would have the effect you want.

You tax Facebook but allow it to operate however it wants. Facebook is then incentivized to double down on its algorithms---like tobacco companies using chemical and biological techniques to make cigarettes more addictive---in order to regain the lost profits.

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

#229

Post by farcebook »

mdoms wrote: post #223
farcebook wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One, most of the mainstream news has at least basic editorial processes in place that do a rudimentary check on truthiness. Facebook, along with some of the sketchier news outlets, are the opposite: they profit off (and optimize for) disinformation. Two, it's a matter of scale. Facebook reaches a far larger audience and has far more detail into their preferences and can nano-target personalized stories for them and c…

> One, most of the mainstream news has at least basic editorial processes in place that do a rudimentary check on truthiness. Come on, man. There are just so many counter examples, from the "paper of record" NYT (1619 Project) to MSNBC (Russia nonsense) to Fox News (literally everything) to Rolling Stone (A Rape on Campus) I could sit here all day listing outright lies and untruths published in the pages of mainstrea…

I agree, and that's why I said "rudimentary". Still, as content producers and not algorithmic aggregators, both their ability and success at amplifying disinformation is much, much less than Facebook's. Even Breitbart or DailyKOS's impacts -- as outlets who often and purposefully distort the truth -- are not even rounding errors to Facebook's sheer scale.

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

#230

Post by madengr »

woeirua wrote: post #77

I think a lot of people are choosing to ignore that a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values. For example, Standard Oil did not break any laws in its ruthless consolidation of the nascent oil industry. In fact, it exploited the law to allow i…

It's not unethical at all. It adheres to the 1st amendment. If anything, the censorship is illegal.
Post reply on HN