Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by bilbo0s » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:18 PM UTC

akudha wrote: post #220

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…

That is the problem of following the absolute minimum standards in life - we (the society as a whole) have accepted that as long as businesses follow the law, its all good. We've accepted that the sole purpose of businesses is to make money within the bounds of the law. While this makes sense logically, it isn't good for anyone in the long run, practically. Also remember that all kinds of unfair laws can be passed, i…

The problem is that without laws, what would those "standards" be?

You have to do more than the law? But how does any business in the future know what that is?

The great things about law are predictability and flexibility. If the law is not enough, we can change it. Then everyone is held to that new standard. But having a standard that is not laid out, is the same thing as having no standard at all.

Going into an area where we say companies have to meet an unwritten ethical and/or moral standard is ripe for abuse. Under those conditions, if I show certain messages or ads on my website that are wholly unethical and immoral, but not necessarily illegal in the written law, I'm opening myself up to liability based on violating unstated ethics and morals.

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

#262

Post by AzzieElbab » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:18 PM UTC

robbrown451 wrote: post #91

travoc wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

She is taking a risk, and I salute her for it. But at the end of the day, it is likely her career will have a huge boost from this. And Facebook would probably be very foolish to go after her.

umm if this hearing results in some kind of monetary settlement she will be entitled to some of it

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

#263

Post by farcebook » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:19 PM UTC

dillondoyle wrote: post #231

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…

I agree with holding all media accountable. But the problem with what you say is that for millions and millions 'news' is actually BS opinion shows. On both sides but from my perspective Fox & Murdoch's empire abroad has done far more harm than say Maddow preaching whatever riles that audience up. The actual press, WaPo, NyTimes (which does great docs, so does Vice imho) have rigid editorial process. Yet I still on H…

Facebook further blurs the difference between objective analysis, expert opinion, and uninformed nonsense. And, yes, like the talk shows, it profits off this amplification of nonsense. Algorithmic engagement is the natural evolution of "if it bleeds, it leads".

Facebook just happens to be much bigger and much better at it than the legacy news companies.

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

#264

Post by munificent » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:19 PM UTC

hunterb123 wrote: post #93

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…

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.

Simply disallowing corporations to reach the scale of Facebook/ConAgra/Amazon/WalMart would solve many many problems.

These companies do awful things because:

1. They have few viable alternatives so ethical consumers end up choosing them when they might not otherwise.

2. They have enough money that it is profitable to do bad things and pay for the damage control.

3. They have enough power to defeat regulation and government oversight.

4. They are so large and monolithic that they can hide their internal workings more easily.

5. The org chart is so deep that those in power are psychologically removed from much of the consequences of their overpowered actions.

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

#265

Post by farcebook » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:19 PM UTC

MikusR wrote: post #247

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…

Facebook has more rudimentary checks on truthiness than any of mainstream news organizations.

Explain?

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

#266

Post by Simplicitas » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:19 PM UTC

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…

Hmm ... I'm personally getting tired of this "well, it's currently legal" .. law changes start with moral indignation. We are at that junction now. Although accurate, let's park the legality lines.

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

#267

Post by cutemonster » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:19 PM UTC

vladd wrote: post #225

jimkleiber wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 revie…

It's a misleading comparison.

From what I read, trafficking / sex slavery was (is) happening via some places on FB, the company knew about it, did nothing. For example.

Edit: the article from this HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28741532 , search for "traffickers" and "drug cartels". /Edit.

Understaffed moderation teams, although FB had lots of money

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

#268

Post by cratermoon » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

elliekelly wrote: post #236

nradov wrote: post #147

The title here doesn't match the article headline. The documents make Facebook look bad but so far I haven't seen anything incriminating , in the sense of violating a US Federal criminal statute. Are there credible allegations of something like securities fraud or wire fraud here? Note that there is no generally no law against disseminating incorrect or "harmful" information.

They’ve lied to the public and (if the lies were material to investors) that’s securities fraud.

Which says more about the emasculated regulatory regime in the US than anything else. There are no penalties, or none of any real meaning, for causing to harm to consumers or the community, but violating the holy tenet of maximizing shareholder value is almost a cardinal sin.

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

#269

Post by piggybox » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #144

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.

If you get too big, you can't buy your competition (e.g. FB buying IG). Or if you get too big, you have to open your stuff up like email does. Or if you lie to congress, you get penalized. Or if you get too big, you have to make your algorithms publicly available.

What part of Gmail is open?

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

#270

Post by Pyramus » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

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…

Enron is another fascinating example, there is an interview with the former CFO where he talks about what he calls "legal fraud" - practices that are highly dubious but technically not illegal [1].

[1] https://youtu.be/goQhGqQtFZ4