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

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

#631

Post by trhway » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:14 AM UTC

pangolinplayer wrote: post #533

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…

If Congress invites you to speak without fear of arrest and the main stream media hold you up as a darling then you are NOT a whistleblower. You are doing the bidding of power... If you are exiled to Russia (Snowden) or locked up without trial like Assange THEN you are whistlw blower and dangerous to power. This chick is a shill

absolutely. To me it sounds like she is exacting revenge on FB for something or may be like the other commenters suggested she is trying to get that whistleblower share of a SEC fine/settlement with FB if one is to come out of this story. Otherwise it is kind of strange turn of heart on her part from profit off the users to suddenly being so caring about the users - I mean she herself founded what is now Hinge dating app https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/hinge/ :

"And like so many dating apps, Hinge asks users to connect their Facebook account to sign in to the app. Remember, when you connect a social media account like Facebook to a dating app, both Facebook and the dating app now potentially collect more information together."

"Hinge definitely shares user data with around 45 other Match Group companies, such as Tinder, OK Cupid, and Plenty of Fish among others. The company also shares data with third parties for purposes such as advertising and analytics."

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

#632

Post by mullingitover » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:15 AM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #624

mullingitover wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep putting words in my mouth, I'm not saying anything about outlawing anything, just assigning liability. > Your post, like many others on this thread, isn't articulating exactly what about FB's conduct you find objectionable? The objectionable conduct is pretty thoroughly covered in the article, but to review: > "Facebook over and over again has shown it chooses profit over safety"

Illegal, liable, doesn't matter --- you want to use the state to drive certain kinds of ranking off the internet. Fine. What, precisely, is the line between algorithms acceptable to you and algorithms not? What is the precise conduct that would make liability attach to a ranking algorithm? You can emote, but you can't describe what exactly it is you would turn into a law.

> You can emote, but you can't describe what exactly it is you would turn into a law.

I thought I made it pretty clear from the outset I was talking about removing CDA Sec 230 protections for sites using bespoke (i.e. proprietary) curation algorithms for their feeds.

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

#633

Post by 2pEXgD0fZ5cF » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:16 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #300

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 astounding to me that too little censorship is characterized as "antithetical to our values", "highly dubious ethically", and worthy of potential legal sanction in the top-ranked comment on HN.

It's astounding that something like a chronological timeline free of Facebooks outrage algorithms is portrayed as censorship.

And honestly the defense of Facebooks unethical behaviour is following a real simple pattern at this point: Shift blame to the users and make it look like Facebook critics want "more censorship".

Facebook shareholders making a few dollars less (if thats even the case) is absolutely not my problem.

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

#634

Post by andreyk » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:26 AM UTC

For anyone like me who actually likes keeping up with friends / signing up to groups and events on FB, check this FB alternative out: https://mewe.com/myworld

The subscription based revenue model by itself makes it hugely different from FB and unlikely to evolve similarly. And while there are of course network effects etc. , this one seems surprisingly large already, so it might just have a chance...

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

#635

Post by 015a » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:30 AM UTC

mr_toad wrote: post #610

015a wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't like Oxycontin, just don't use Oxycontin, Dilaudid, or Fentanyl. Don't know why so many people here think adults are not capable of regulating themselves.

Chemical dependency is a real thing with serious medical effects. Severe cases of withdrawal can actually be fatal.

Social media dependency is a real thing, with serious medical side effects, which can include Depression, which in severe cases can actually be fatal.

But, you know, prescription medicine dependence, its different, right? Right. Its gotta be different. And the reason its different is because... fewer people use social media? No. Fewer people suffer from mental health issues? Definitely not. Fewer people have overtly negative outcomes, including death, from mental health issues? Nope.

So, actually, the only reason its different is: We've fully studied and have a mature grasp of the personal and social impact of some chemical dependencies. The same can not be said of mental health, and all the evidence you need for this immaturity can be found in comments like some in this thread, or those from Zuckerberg.

The cigarette companies are commissioning studies saying smoking is healthy, and people still downplay the victims. If you've ever wondered how anyone can think smoking is healthy; in 10 years, some may look back to the '10s and wonder the same thing about social media. How could anyone have worked for Facebook, defended them, saying they've done more good than bad?

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

#636

Post by aylmao » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:38 AM UTC

aierou wrote: post #76

walrus01 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone I know who works in FAANG, FB specifically, and PMs even more specifically, really have little idea of whats going on in the bigger picture That's exactly the thing about the banality of evil, any individual person working on some small subsystem or component of something in a FAANG, to them it might not immediately be apparent that what they're doing is enabling the corrosion of democracy and discourse. A…

You just compared a social media company to a weapons manufacturer. Elsewhere, I see comparisons to cigarettes, oxycontin, gambling. It is easy to see how one might think Facebook to be evil if they are constantly bombarded with these false equivalencies.

Humble Oil (now ExxonMobil) understood CO2 emissions caused by fossil fuel consumption were causing climate change on a catastrophic scale [1]. What followed were decades of denial, push-back and intentional disinformation. Only fairly recently have fossil-fuel companies admitted the product they have so eagerly promoted and sold for decades is destroying life on Earth.

Perhaps what's at stake here is not the careful balance of life on a global scale, but what's worrying is that it's a similar pattern:

- Something bad is going on. Researchers find it can attributed to the cash-cow of a multi-billion company.

- The corporation denies it. They have their own research showing it's good.

- Some time later, the truth comes out. The company knew all along that what they sold was bad, and any internal efforts to make it better were shut down because they hurt the bottom-line.

The planet isn't as stake here but a lot is— teenagers shouldn't be stressing, nor should misinformation keep spreading, etc so Facebook can keep milking its cash cow. The point of comparison isn't that Facebook is literally causing deaths, but that they are putting profits before the well-being of the people they know they're pushing a harmful product to.

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20210211073059/https://www.nytim...

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

#637

Post by 2pEXgD0fZ5cF » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:45 AM UTC

freeopinion wrote: post #442

finfinfin wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like you are willfully ignoring Facebook’s own findings. They know that polarizing content is more engaging yet harmful… and they choose to amplify it anyway. The same old argument that it’s hard therefore let’s not do anything is not applicable. Facebook is not a neutral platform that just shows all posts from your friends in a chronological order. They are actively manipulating the stream and are fully respon…

> Facebook [clipped] are fully responsible for what you consume. I'm not sure how deeply you hold this belief, but I am concerned to see so many people push all blame from their own actions. While it may be true that Facebook is largely responsible for what is consumed * on Facebook *, individuals are largely responsible for consuming Facebook.

> While it may be true that Facebook is largely responsible for what is consumed * on Facebook *, individuals are largely responsible for consuming Facebook.

I don't see any shift of blame. Those two aspects are in no way mutually exclusive. Facebook can be 100% at fault for their manipulation and deliberate outrage generation and you can still blame an individual for being irresponsible with their social media usage.

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

#638

Post by Talanes » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 2:01 AM UTC

vpfaulkner wrote: post #389

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minors don't use FB much anyway. It's more tik-tok now. And of course no minor would use an app monitored by her parents, she will immediately switch to another app.

Sorry, should have clarified: I was suggesting that if the government decides to regulate it should apply to all social media platforms, not just FB. Updated the original comment.

Unless you're also requiring IDs for age verification, then that just means that the kids will lie.

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

#639

Post by sio8ohPi » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 2:18 AM UTC

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 curious if you think HN needs to have such a warning banner.

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

#640

Post by asabjorn » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 2:24 AM 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…

Illegality is dangerous to define and enforce when it comes to speech. Especially if Glenn Greenwald[1] is right that this is not an attempt to weaken facebook, but to commandeer its power to censor.

Directory of Policy Communications for Facebook Lena Pietch just called for "standard rules" for the whole internet, increasing the danger because whomever would get that power could widely censor unwanted popular dissent and counter narrative viewpoints. Facebook already caused damage doing this by censoring the lab leak hypothesis, which delayed potential lifesaving insights.

The whistleblower also has a political connection that should be investigated; The law firm representing the whistleblower also represent Whitehouse Press Secretary Jen Psaki, and the whistleblowers lawyer Andrew P. Bakaj[2] was the principal attorney representing the whistleblower who filed the initial complaint that led to the Trump impeachment process.

[1] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/democrats-and-media-do-not-... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_P._Bakaj