My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post • Hacker News Board

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#121

Post by jmull » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:12 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

As cited in this article, Frances Haugen is arguing against allowing Facebook to use end-to-end encryption because she suggests Facebook should have more surveillance of private communications: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1452309133928054799?s... A lot of people jumped to the defense of the Facebook leaker because the media so successfully framed it as a “whistleblower” situation, but that’s not really wha…

There isn't any reason someone can't be both a whistleblower and an activist.

> and some of her suggestions really do not align with what the tech community wants at all

For what it's worth, she says her views on E2E encryption have been misrepresented.

Also, where is this single "tech community" with cohesive views on all this? I've never seen it. I'm pretty skeptical of anyone claiming to speak for the tech community.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#122

Post by quotemstr » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

bostonsre wrote: post #38

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

As cited in this article, Frances Haugen is arguing against allowing Facebook to use end-to-end encryption because she suggests Facebook should have more surveillance of private communications: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1452309133928054799?s... A lot of people jumped to the defense of the Facebook leaker because the media so successfully framed it as a “whistleblower” situation, but that’s not really wha…

> her suggestions really do not align with what the tech community wants at all. I feel like we as a tech community should take a step back and consider whether or not we should not be the only ones that decide what should or should not be done. It is a massive country with many opposing viewpoints. We have massive conflicts of interest and some tech companies have shown over and over that greed trumps morals in many…

> I feel like we as a tech community should take a step back and consider whether or not we should not be the only ones that decide what should or should not be done

When it comes to encryption, tech activists say tech should take a back seat to policy-makers and let them decide on the rules. When it comes to internet censorship, tech activists says "but my private companies!" and argues that techies decide on the limits of acceptable discourse for the whole world.

What do these stances have in common? That activists are arguing that tech should do what power wants.

There are no principles at work here. There's only a "who, whom" power dynamic. Activists will say whatever is effective in the moment for achieving their immediate aims, and right now, that's being good little sycophants for people with broad, unclear, and definitely undemocratic influence over public affairs.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#123

Post by jahnu » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

muglug wrote: post #41

> I built a great team, built the product, and unlike the current crop of whistleblowers I submitted my resignation and fostered strong relationships with my soon-to-be-ex-colleagues, because there is a lot more impact to be had through constructive engagement than in rage-quitting. This has a bit of a holier-than-thou approach. He was in a radically-different position than some of the whistleblowers — he was an engi…

Agreed!

And this:

> journalists are nothing but exploitative

Talk about sweeping generalisations!

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#124

Post by PragmaticPulp » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

jmull wrote: post #121

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

As cited in this article, Frances Haugen is arguing against allowing Facebook to use end-to-end encryption because she suggests Facebook should have more surveillance of private communications: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1452309133928054799?s... A lot of people jumped to the defense of the Facebook leaker because the media so successfully framed it as a “whistleblower” situation, but that’s not really wha…

There isn't any reason someone can't be both a whistleblower and an activist. > and some of her suggestions really do not align with what the tech community wants at all For what it's worth, she says her views on E2E encryption have been misrepresented. Also, where is this single "tech community" with cohesive views on all this? I've never seen it. I'm pretty skeptical of anyone claiming to speak for the tech communi…

> For what it's worth, she says her views on E2E encryption have been misrepresented.

My link above has direct quotes from Haughen regarding E2E encryption.

I don’t understand why people are so eager to project something different on to what she’s directly saying.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#125

Post by malwrar » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:14 PM UTC

bostonsre wrote: post #38

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

As cited in this article, Frances Haugen is arguing against allowing Facebook to use end-to-end encryption because she suggests Facebook should have more surveillance of private communications: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1452309133928054799?s... A lot of people jumped to the defense of the Facebook leaker because the media so successfully framed it as a “whistleblower” situation, but that’s not really wha…

> her suggestions really do not align with what the tech community wants at all. I feel like we as a tech community should take a step back and consider whether or not we should not be the only ones that decide what should or should not be done. It is a massive country with many opposing viewpoints. We have massive conflicts of interest and some tech companies have shown over and over that greed trumps morals in many…

Some part of me feels like this would be like letting the country decide on vaccines.

I don’t think people have any idea what end-to-end encryption means, they just hear maybe the occasional slogan (“it keeps your messages private”, “it lets terrorists hide from cops”) and assume there’s some valid choice between totally cripple online security and totally cripple people stalking your communications. I don’t even think people understand the implications of what communications means. Why else are we still talking about this issue in abstract terms when the harms are precisely enumerable and the supposed benefits can be completely debunked as fantasy?

All this stuff is so depressing. Free speech online is no longer in vogue, the ACLU, EFF, and other usual heroes of these sorts of battles feel asleep at the wheel. It’s sad to think I might see the death of something so beautiful.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#126

Post by pfraze » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:15 PM UTC

wakiza33 wrote: post #102

pfraze wrote: post #21

Just saying, at this stage, if I were Facebook and I wanted to take the pressure off, I’d be putting out little stories that make the story about the whistleblower instead of about Facebook. I’d also focus on stories that will make us disagree with her over various particulars rather than with Facebook. Facebook has a pretty simple problem: they pissed off too many people, either by taking too much of the winnings fo…

That's a fair perspective. The part of it though that is nefarious is that the main segment they have angered is the media. Simply put, the advertising dollars that used to go to newspapers now go to Facebook and Google (because you can reach the same audience far more efficiently). Unfortunately, it's pretty clear the media 'has it out for' facebook, ultimately, for monetary reasons. Particularly the big institution…

I think that's true to an extent; angering all of the media at once is sure to have some bad consequences. But I think the other grievances I mentioned are fairly specific and not just engineered via repeated bad press.

Again, the core of their problem is that they inserted themselves into the middle layer of everything. In doing so, they adopted all the negatives along with the positives. It seems like an untenable position in the long run; you just can't monopolize computing like this.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#127

Post by oceanplexian » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:15 PM UTC

lowkey_ wrote: post #7

yodsanklai wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is a bit schizophrenic on this topic. On one hand, it seems everybody wants more freedom and less surveillance, but they give FB a hard time for not monitoring content better. Hopefully these aren't the same people expressing these contradictory points of view. I'd be curious to know what both side think the ideal social network should look like.

> On one hand, it seems everybody wants more freedom and less surveillance, but they give FB a hard time for not monitoring content better. I don't think these are conflicting views: (1) Less monitoring on private messages (2) More monitoring on public posts

How about (3) Less consolidation of power

Personally as someone who doesn't use FB and never will, I couldn't care less if Facebook wants to track and monitor every one of their users, monetize their every movement, and ban any message they want. In a free market you'd have thousands of social networks to provide competition with all sorts of different policies and ToS. The real issue is that one company is in a skewed position of power due to a broken marketplace. Fix that problem and all the other problems are irrelevant.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#128

Post by ineedasername » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:17 PM UTC

nanis wrote: post #104

ineedasername wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frances Haugen's own motives are not the defining factor regarding the public utility of leaking this material. Her motives are her own, and once her information is out in the open it isn't up to her to decide what we all do about it. I'm not about to dismiss what was revealed just because I disagree with some of her opinions about that material.

> Frances Haugen's own motives Motives aside, whether she is acting as a mole for intelligence agencies to gather support for enabling more 'round the clock surveillance of wrong-think under the guise of "blowing the whistle" is a defining factor.

If you have evidence of her working as a secret intelligence agency undercover operative, then I'll be incorporate that into views on this issue.

However, I think I'd still be glad that the information she leaked is now public, just like I'd be glad if a plot by intelligence agencies to systematically censor social media was made public, just like I've been glad when prior abuses by the government have been made public. Get it all out in the open.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#129

Post by quotemstr » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:17 PM UTC

lowkey_ wrote: post #7

yodsanklai wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is a bit schizophrenic on this topic. On one hand, it seems everybody wants more freedom and less surveillance, but they give FB a hard time for not monitoring content better. Hopefully these aren't the same people expressing these contradictory points of view. I'd be curious to know what both side think the ideal social network should look like.

> On one hand, it seems everybody wants more freedom and less surveillance, but they give FB a hard time for not monitoring content better. I don't think these are conflicting views: (1) Less monitoring on private messages (2) More monitoring on public posts

> I don't think these are conflicting views: (1) Less monitoring on private messages (2) More monitoring on public posts

The same people argue that FB needs to censor more public content and wringing their hands in public over just how awful it is that in places like India, WhatsApp message forwards can spread memes that respectable people like western journalists and tech activists don't like.

It's a "who, whom" thing. There's no principled stance differentiating private from public with respect to control and censorship. It's become respectable in western political discourse to demand totalitarian control over the spread of ideas. Today's activists will do or say whatever it takes in the moment to bring the boots closer to human faces forever. Anyone who values human dignity needs to oppose this movement.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#130

Post by stanleydrew » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:18 PM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #103

bostonsre wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I agree that we should absolutely provide advice on our area of expertise for topics in our domain but I don't think we should be the ones that make the decision. The other side of the debate aren't idiots, they have some valid view points, else this encryption debate would have been settled long ago. Encryption was not the only point brought up by the OP, they were also against government regulation. My main po…

Would you care to share what you think the valid view points against encryption are? For my own part, I find it helpful to remember that questions over encryption have been ongoing for several decades. Historically, the arguments boiled down to shouting about CSAM, terrorism, drugs, etc. Mostly it tended to be really be about law enforcement agencies wanting to have the unfettered powers of surveillance. What's perha…

I don't think it's that complicated or nefarious. Law enforcement are humans just like us, mostly trying to do their jobs with as little effort as possible. Encrypted communication makes their jobs harder in some cases, so they don't like it.

> What's perhaps most interesting to me is that the prevalence of encryption seems to have done very little to stop the FBI from catching people.

I don't think we can know this. Or maybe you have some data? But more importantly there's a big gap between "catching" someone and "convicting" someone. Having the content of specific communications can make a big difference in actually proving guilt.