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

61–70 of 320 posts

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#61

Post by alex1138 »

nullbio wrote: post #3

People just submitted it. I don't know why. They "trust me". Dumb fucks.

Oh no, but he was "making a point". Or he was young. He was "right" that it's bad to give up your info (so Zuck hammered home the point by scraping email contacts and using it to populate People You May Know. for your own good)

You didn't hear that out of Myspace or Friendster or anyone else that's trusted with information

Minimum threshold should be "People should be less forgiving of just giving away credentials but now that I have them I'll protect them with my life". Oh well. Apparently I'm just an idiot

He was just joking just like he was joking when he said he'd "fuck the Winklevosses in the ear"

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#62

Post by ryandrake »

throwyawayyyy wrote: post #20
pydry wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is quite normal. Most billionaires spend their life surrounded by people who flatter them and indulge their every whim and agree with their every prejudice.

It's the Silicon Valley circular-reasoning meritocracy in action: those with the billions deserve to have the billions because they have managed to get the billions. Every extra dollar only goes to prove how little they need to listen to those with less.

Not just Silicon Valley, although SV is definitely the poster child for this mentality. It’s a problem all over the world. Obtaining X fully justifies having X. Nobody cares about the “how.”

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#63

Post by consensus1 »

jacobgold wrote: post #45
bob001 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What grounds are there to void this contract that was agreed on my both parties?

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#64

Post by hack1312 »

cyanydeez wrote: post #17
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.

at some point we have to accept that money turns normal people into paychopaths along multiple trajectories. and tax the shit out of them to prevent the healthcare costs.

“Paychopaths” is a pretty apt typo

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#65

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

unknownfuture wrote: post #58
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #44

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.

Then take her to court for libel and prove it. Facebook execs have absolutely not earned the benefit of the doubt, here.

I agree. She sued them a few days ago over it, and reiterates a couple of the worst claims in her complaint, so presumably over the course of that case the two sides will try to prove or disprove them. (It shouldn't be too surprising that Meta didn't start a court battle earlier - is there a single person on the planet who would read "Meta Platforms files $10 million defamation suit against whistleblower" and become less angry at Meta?)

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#66

Post by ryandrake »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #59
ryandrake wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they are going to deny. Whether or not they actually did the things claimed, there is no universe where denying isn’t the best tactic. So their denials in and of themselves don’t mean anything. Every single company accused of wrongdoing publicly denies, all the way up to and including when they settle or are found to have actually done the wrongdoing.

Again, I don't think the fact that they're denying it requires you to agree. But if you want to develop an accurate understanding of the world, you have to acknowledge that they are denying it, and evaluate how well this denial explains their actions before launching into complex alternative theories.

Given Meta’s (and their leadership’s) outward, visible, documented and repeated bad behavior, “wrongdoing” is not a complex alternative theory. It’s the simplest explanation.

So sure, acknowledge that they are denying. The only thing it explains is that horrible entities tend to deny horrible behavior.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#67

Post by dahart »

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…

> It is just plain ago and pettiness […] Why else would Zuck cheat on a board game

Recently I felt somewhat enlightened on this point, specifically in regards to Trump cheating at golf and some of his bald-faced lies, but I’d speculate it applies here too. Others pointed out to me that while it might look petty and ridiculous to normal people, it’s a social power move to get away with things, and serves the purpose of testing what can be gotten away with, and practicing or exercising the push dynamic. It may have little to do with winning a board game, and a lot to do with seeing what people will tolerate and what the thresholds are for being called out; it’s a test of one’s intimidation factor. It may be somewhat important that the cheating is visible. It can also be social signaling to see who comes to their defense when called out, which is an effect that has been playing out on the national stage with obvious lies being repeated, defended, or excused. It’s not about what’s true, but about people showing the rule breaker who’s on their side, and giving them the power to break rules.

This, BTW, to me is a depressing and pessimistic view of power and politics and humanity, and I don’t think these kinds of power moves are something to aspire to, nor do they always work. But as a framework I have to admit it has a lot of explanatory power.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#69

Post by uxhacker »

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…

For a bit more context the Belarusian activist built on the anti communist Polish Activist Waldemar "Major" Fydrych who in the 1980’s was arrested by the communist authorities in Poland for handing out female sanitary products.

As he said “The Western World will find out much more about the situation in Poland from hearing that I was put to jail for giving tampons to a woman, than from reading the books and articles written by other people from the opposition.”

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#70

Post by alex1138 »

dofm wrote: post #53

It's not increasingly bizarre, really, if you just allow for the possibility of one thing: There's something else worse that they know could be in such a book, but isn't yet, and it is so bad that it is worth doing this. Perhaps they know that Wynn-Williams could have put it in the book and didn't. Perhaps they know that someone else — someone else British, say? — could write such things in a book and so far hasn't.…

> someone else British, say?

I genuinely don't know what this is in reference to but it's notable Christopher Wylie got suspended on FB

Which is obviously more of a priority than any number of horrible things you could report which never get taken down

Post reply on HN