Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ousted propaganda scholar accuses Harvard of bowing to Meta

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 551 posts

Re: Ousted propaganda scholar accuses Harvard of bowing to Meta

#351

Post by bko »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #306
bko wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't answer my question. Why should it be done at universities? I get that stuff like it is already done there, but why? Short selling has a long history. Obv people don't like them but don't know any successful lawsuits. Prob a lot easier and cheaper to capture a uni than sue some short seller.

> You didn't answer my question. Why should it be done at universities? Let me try again. One of the reasons research is supposed to be done at universities is specifically to remove financial incentives. Tenure is meant to insulate academia from having to worry about financial incentives and what is popular so they can focus on what is true . > Prob a lot easier and cheaper to capture a uni than sue some short selle…

> Let me try again. One of the reasons research is supposed to be done at universities is specifically to remove financial incentives.

Wasn't this whole thing preempted by financial incentives playing a role in Harvard dropping the case. My point is financial incentives exist either way. The difference is that FB can point and say "Harvard says we're great and they have no financial incentives to lie *wink*" or we can say "sure I have a lot to gain if I'm right but that doesn't mean I'm wrong".

So you kind of made my point for me. It's the high minded veneer of objectivity I am most against

Re: Ousted propaganda scholar accuses Harvard of bowing to Meta

#352

Post by cortesoft »

cbsmith wrote: post #340
macksd wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think sidelining the lead researcher and giving the project to another group is accurately described at "gutting a team". No, they didn't end the project, but the series of events described seems to be insinuating that she could have led the project if she was willing to have her work funded by Facebook, listen to one of their former people, etc. So if that was their goal, and they just got someone else to do the w…

Fair, but it raises the question of the motives behind it. It would seem they didn't necessarily have a problem with the research, but rather with the lead researcher. There's complicated issues of academic freedom to parse here, but in principle, if you aren't happy with the work someone is doing, it's not entirely unreasonable that you'd let them go and have someone else pick up the work.

> It would seem they didn't necessarily have a problem with the research, but rather with the lead researcher

This is the entire crux of the issue; do they have a problem with the lead researcher because she isn't good at her job or because she is finding things that their large donor doesn't like?

Re: Ousted propaganda scholar accuses Harvard of bowing to Meta

#354

Post by anonymouskimmer »

wharvle wrote: post #300
kevinventullo wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might make more sense to think of it less as a donation and more as buying fuzzy influence.

This makes more sense when one recalls that a whole lot of powerful people, including and perhaps especially politicians, come from a handful of prestigious schools, and are surrounded by advisors and assistants largely from those same schools. [edit] and of course the real rabbit hole is private prep schools. Good luck becoming president in this century without attending one. Wonder what their donor lists look like.

> Good luck becoming president in this century without attending one.

Bill Clinton made it last century, and Hillary almost made it this century. I don't think the odds are that stacked against public school attendees even now.

Re: Ousted propaganda scholar accuses Harvard of bowing to Meta

#355

Post by karaterobot »

Arson9416 wrote: post #303
fmbb wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current economic system where (in the US) bribes are “speech” and corporations are people unavoidably leads to things like this project getting neutered. “The invisible hand” Adam Smith refers to are the unintended consequences from merchants’ want to keep their capital: increasing the domestic capital stock and enhancing military power for the state, i.e. protectionism etc. More broadly and lately it refers to a…

Bribery exists in every economic system, even before economic systems existed, and is not uniquely connected to the free market. Nor are they connected to "unintended societal consequences", since bribes very clearly have a specific goal. So it doesn't make any sense.

Just wanted to say that you're completely correct and making a very reasonable statement which is not controversial. I would love to hear about an economic system in which bribery did not exist or have influence, but I have not seen any examples of that yet, in the present day or in history.

I don't agree that bribes can't have unintended social consequences. They do have specific goals, yes. But some unintended consequences of bribery would be things like discouraging honest participants, or encouraging the most corrupt people (rather than the best, on merit) to place themselves in positions of authority, so as to get bribes. All of these are unintended in the sense that neither the person giving the bribe nor the person taking the bribe are trying to bring them about per se, they're only thinking about the immediate consequences (I get what I want).

Re: Ousted propaganda scholar accuses Harvard of bowing to Meta

#356

Post by [deleted] »

Animats wrote: post #265

Harvard's top management seems to be caving in to donors a lot lately.[1][2] Those were over the Israel/Palestine war. Now it's over Facebook. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/06/business/harvard-antisemitism... [2] https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/02/business/law-firms-antisemiti...

[deleted]

Re: Ousted propaganda scholar accuses Harvard of bowing to Meta

#357

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

prosqlinjector wrote: post #65
lelandfe wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a whistleblower’s report speculation?

The individual is using the same reasoning as the headline. They weren't getting the fund they wanted and noticed there was a donation recently. They are speculating that that's the cause of their lack of organization support. "whistleblower" is a journalism word meant to imply who the good guy is and endow them with credibility. Rewriting the story with "employee files complaint" doesn't hit the same.

> They weren't getting the fund they wanted and noticed there was a donation recently. They are speculating that that's the cause of their lack of organization support.

If this is really the evidence you think they're using I'd be willing to bet you didn't read their report: https://live-whistleblower-aid.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/up...

Sure, it's all anecdotal -- it is testimony, after all -- but much of it is backed up by email and text conversations. On the topic of a potential conflict of interest, what do you think about the personal relationship between Doug Elmendorf and Elliot Schrage?

Re: Ousted propaganda scholar accuses Harvard of bowing to Meta

#358

Post by drawkward »

qaq wrote: post #346
drawkward wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opposition to the sand-glassing of Gaza by Israel is not encouragement of harassment. Nor am I aware of any substantial number of students encouraging the harassment of Jewish students. A shocking number of student groups claimed something akin to "Israel brought [this attack] upon itself," which, while somewhere between tone deaf and despicable is also not encouraging harassment. On the other hand, you do have legit…

A shocking number of students openly support Hamas and like to chant "from the river to the sea ..." and that just at the surface level. If you look at say UCLA things are far more grim than posting "tone deaf" msgs.

You are conflating use of the phrase "from the river to the sea..." with support for Hamas. The phrase has been used in many ways, and depending on the context, could have different meanings:

Benjamin Netanyahu himself was using a map that espoused a "river to the sea" vision of Israel at the UN. [1] A different version "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty" was a founding ideological tenet of Israel's Likud party (which Netanyahu represents), though it has subsequently been dropped. [2][3]

[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-brand... [2] https://www.thenation.com/article/world/its-time-to-confront... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/09/us/politics/river-to-the-...

One could reasonably support a free Palestine without advocating support for Hamas, or support for violence against Jewish people.

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "if you look at UCLA"? That is merely a suggestion of something, without an argument, much less evidence.

Re: Ousted propaganda scholar accuses Harvard of bowing to Meta

#359

Post by anonymouskimmer »

karaterobot wrote: post #349

> [Harvard] also denies that she was fired, saying she “was offered the chance to continue as a part-time adjunct lecturer, and she chose not to do so.” I have not read her filing, or followed her specific research, so I have no opinion about the possible merits or conspiracy theories regarding winding down her project. But, that statement by Harvard is suspicious. You take someone who is high profile, doing their ow…

Yeah, this is called "constructive dismissal" in the real world.

Re: Ousted propaganda scholar accuses Harvard of bowing to Meta

#360

Post by tuwtuwtuwtuw »

graphe wrote: post #335
tuwtuwtuwtuw wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not following your reasoning here. There are people working with the topic that is online disinformation. I know Swedish government have some teams who analyze disinformation campaigns, as an example. Are you saying that people who work with this area cannot be experts on the area?

What makes information disinformation or fake news? Who decided it?

I don't understand how that is relevant to the question I asked. Are you suggesting that no one can be experts on disinformation because different people have different view on what is true? Sounds a bit silly to me. Is the earth flat or more shaped like a globe?
Post reply on HN