Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers • Hacker News Board

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#21

Post by djeastm » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 3:40 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #9

LightBug1 wrote: post #4

I submit that the human brain isn't equipped to handle control of multi-hundreds of billions of dollars cap and the working lives of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Particularly if you're morally suspect to begin with. This is just one of countless obvious examples.

FDR is a very interesting case study. He had the country in the palm of his hand and could have cemented his (or his party’s) power permanently, but instead he left the republic intact.

Hmm... Didn't he try to pack the Supreme Court?

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#22

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 3:40 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #11

wat10000 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money is power. Power corrupts.

I wonder if power actually corrupts, or if it’s really that attaining power requires pretending to be a good person, and the mask can fall off after the power is attained.

[deleted]

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#23

Post by yard2010 » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 3:41 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #9

LightBug1 wrote: post #4

I submit that the human brain isn't equipped to handle control of multi-hundreds of billions of dollars cap and the working lives of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Particularly if you're morally suspect to begin with. This is just one of countless obvious examples.

FDR is a very interesting case study. He had the country in the palm of his hand and could have cemented his (or his party’s) power permanently, but instead he left the republic intact.

As The President told FDR in Rick and Morty: "Try having an historical administration after Facebook goes online, you old-timey bitch!"

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#24

Post by hyhatqtv » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 3:43 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #9

LightBug1 wrote: post #4

I submit that the human brain isn't equipped to handle control of multi-hundreds of billions of dollars cap and the working lives of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Particularly if you're morally suspect to begin with. This is just one of countless obvious examples.

FDR is a very interesting case study. He had the country in the palm of his hand and could have cemented his (or his party’s) power permanently, but instead he left the republic intact.

Well actual dictators generally do those things because they need to subvert the constitutional to stay in power. Roosevelt didn’t need any of that in order to make sure he remained president for the remainder of his lifetime.

After all there was a constitutional amendment pass soon after to stop any president from doing what FDR did.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#25

Post by nilirl » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 3:43 PM UTC

> denied her access to the legal system in all her dealings with Meta

How ... how is that legal? Why would that ever be made legal?

Apparently businesses can use contracts to opt out of regular public courts and agree on using a neutral decision-maker; an arbitrator.

But then the post says:

> Meta got its arbitrator – a lawyer who is paid by Meta to adjudicate contractual disputes instead of an actual judge

Huh? How's that legal?

Turns out, the law requires arbitrators to be neutral, but not the people choosing the arbitrators.

Arbitration services are businesses. So even though Meta doesn't directly pay the arbitrator, they pay the business picking the arbitrator.

Meaning, Meta has a long-term relationship with the arbitration service provider. They can choose to take their business elsewhere, if unhappy.

Imagine being Wynn-Williams, having a company of this size put a target on your head. I wonder how many live in silence because the paycheck is too good or the punishment too bad.

But an even larger point: most of HN is probably employed by a company that aspires to be Meta; HN is run by a VC fund that wants to make many Metas; and worse, unfortunately, I sometimes dream of being a Zuckerberg.

I am thoroughly seduced by a power I've never felt, even if I see it as poison.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#26

Post by hyhatqtv » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 3:45 PM UTC

djeastm wrote: post #21

smt88 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FDR is a very interesting case study. He had the country in the palm of his hand and could have cemented his (or his party’s) power permanently, but instead he left the republic intact.

Hmm... Didn't he try to pack the Supreme Court?

He and the congress (and probably most of the country would have supported it) . There is an argument to be made that the Supreme Court was at least partially usurping the powers of the legislative and executive branches to impose its political policies.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#27

Post by hyhatqtv » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 3:47 PM UTC

lokar wrote: post #15

smt88 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FDR is a very interesting case study. He had the country in the palm of his hand and could have cemented his (or his party’s) power permanently, but instead he left the republic intact.

That’s not what the right thinks. They are obsessed with him and rolling back the new deal.

The New Deal was mostly rolled back a while ago. After all corporatism did generally fall out of fashion for after WW2 (and of course there was quite a bit of opposition of state planning due to geopolitical reasons in the 50s and later)

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#28

Post by hedora » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 3:47 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #14

jjgreen wrote: post #2

Zuckerberg knows that threatening Wynn-Williams for standing in wooden silence on a stage makes him look like history's most guillotineable billionaire. There's quite a bit of competition out there ,,,

I kinda get the hate but harking back to the la terreur doesn’t do anyone any favors and instead will engender strange bedfellows.

Do you have a concrete suggestion that is better in some way?

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#29

Post by hyhatqtv » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 3:49 PM UTC

datakan wrote: post #8

Seems pretty clear to me that he's a full blown sociopath. I know it's bad form to diagnose people online but the guy basically prides himself on it and makes no attempt to hide it. He just doesn't view others as human being.

> He just doesn't view others as human being

Well (allegedly) being a robot lizard would explain that. Neither are known for a lot of empathy towards human beings.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#30

Post by tetris11 » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 3:50 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #14

jjgreen wrote: post #2

Zuckerberg knows that threatening Wynn-Williams for standing in wooden silence on a stage makes him look like history's most guillotineable billionaire. There's quite a bit of competition out there ,,,

I kinda get the hate but harking back to the la terreur doesn’t do anyone any favors and instead will engender strange bedfellows.

It took the literal burning down of aristocratic homes during the english reforms of 1832 for the House of Lords to finally sit down with Earl Grey and hash out a bill that would finally grant large populated cities like Manchester actual voting rights.

The French Revolution was still fresh in minds of these elites - the July Monarchy having just taken place - and yet still they let it escalate to the point of near civil war.