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

Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 320 posts

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#41

Post by Waterluvian »

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.

I think some people imagine the rule of law to be a replacement for the law of nature. I think it sits in front, protecting all parties from a much more violent form of justice.

If billionaires fail to support the rule of law, especially if they wield their immense power to press on the scales, they should not be surprised when people lose faith in the more civil option.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#42

Post by CPLX »

nilirl wrote: post #25

> 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'…

It’s not legal. There is a current federal lawsuit on this exact topic.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#43

Post by gherkinnn »

Yet another reminder that

a) Meta is a nasty company

b) Zuck has neither the taste nor the vision to get Meta to build anything. He will continue to mine his current platforms to finance whatever is hot that day. Yesterday it was glasses, today it is betting and tomorrow it will be something else. Forever chasing what he can never attain.

c) Reality is banal. Zuck's merry band of sycophants lets him cheat at Settlers of Catan.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#44

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

I don't understand the purpose of an analysis that goes on for pages and pages without even mentioning that Meta says Wynn-Williams isn't telling the truth. I'm not saying you have to agree with them! But if you don't acknowledge their stated position you're not going to be able to make sense of the situation.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#45

Post by jacobgold »

bob001 wrote: post #40
jacobgold wrote: post #34

Meta said in a statement that its “she accepted a large severance payment years ago...” This is the only point from Meta that is legitimate. If she accepted payment in exchange for signing an NDA and then violated it, the appropriate remedy in this should be that she returns the money. Which doesn't change the fact that Zuckerberg should be ashamed of using NDAs as a weapon like this. It's very small minded from a ma…

> using NDAs as a weapon like this. This is standard in companies. I've seen companies give a pittance in exchange for a binding NDA and the person took it because they needed to pay rent that month. Meta is evil but in this case so is almost every other company and especially tech companies. Also, giving it back doesn't undo the contract, the deal was done.

Yes, NDAs are very common, but there are more and less ethical ways to use them.

A judge can decide to invalidate the contract entirely, which is what I'm suggesting would be the correct remedy in this case.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#46

Post by hack1312 »

hyhatqtv wrote: post #29
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.

[flagged]

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#47

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

akudha wrote: post #37

My guess would be - there is way more primitive explanation than setting an example etc (which is also a good reason, from their point of view). It is just plain ego and pettiness - we see it everywhere, even from a manager who has 3 people reporting to him. Why else would Zuck cheat on a board game , of all things? That too in private? It might just be as primitive as "I have more money than God, therefore I am bett…

Or perhaps Zuck didn't cheat on the board game, and the claim that he did is one of the purported falsehoods Meta says the book contains. That would also explain it.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#48

Post by kylecazar »

akudha wrote: post #37

My guess would be - there is way more primitive explanation than setting an example etc (which is also a good reason, from their point of view). It is just plain ego and pettiness - we see it everywhere, even from a manager who has 3 people reporting to him. Why else would Zuck cheat on a board game , of all things? That too in private? It might just be as primitive as "I have more money than God, therefore I am bett…

This applies to Elon's incredibly strange video game cheating scandal too.

It's pathetic and weird.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#49

Post by mananaysiempre »

gilrain wrote: post #38
mc32 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Oh, well better let them destroy everything with greed then. Wouldn’t want to break, like, five eggs to save every other egg in the world… The ethics become laughably simple, with as far as they’ve taken the resource imbalance. They should be very worried.

The phrase about omelette and eggs (or rather its direct counterpart, about timber and chips) ended up as the unofficial primary justification for Stalin’s Great Purge, so the point about strange bedfellows stands. Twentieth-century Russia is in general a good example of what happens when you systematically eradicate the country’s elites, regardless of how unfairly they have gotten into the position or how miserable everybody else is.

The broader point, dating back to at least the French Revolution, is that once you establish the precedent that killing opponents is a way to win, it only takes a decade or two before the most ruthless killers become the winners. All proxy metrics are bad, including electability, but this one is especially awful. I’m more puzzled by why some violent movements do seem to have had some success than by why most didn’t.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#50

Post by jjgreen »

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.

I'd be a happy tricoteur
Post reply on HN