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

91–100 of 320 posts

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#91

Post by fwipsy »

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.…

The article mentions:

> But I think they've decided that this is a price worth paying, because:

> a) They've done even worse things since Wynn-Williams parted ways with the company; and

> b) They're laying off thousands of workers because their giant bet on AI has been a flop, leaving them with a massive cash crunch; and

> c) By destroying Sarah Wynn-Williams, they can terrorize all those thousands of bitter ex-employees into silence about the even graver sins the company has committed.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#92

Post by neilv »

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.…

The article's theory is similar:

> But I think they've decided that this is a price worth paying, because: [...] c) By destroying Sarah Wynn-Williams, they can terrorize all those thousands of bitter ex-employees into silence about the even graver sins the company has committed.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#93

Post by spinningslate »

alex1138 wrote: post #70
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

I’d hazard a guess they might be referring to an ex-British politician who went on to have a high profile role in comms at meta.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#94

Post by lokar »

hyhatqtv wrote: post #27
lokar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Social security? And the follow-up, Medicare?

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#95

Post by leoc »

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…

The story about cheating at Scrabble bears a fairly close resemblance to the episode in the Tintin comic Flight 714 https://tintin.fandom.com/wiki/Flight_714 in which megarich industrialist Laszlo Carreidas cheats at Battleship while flying on his private jet https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1i6cv... . If the Scrabble incident really did happen then it's uncomfortable how close it comes to a fictional detail deliberately written to make Carreidas look unscrupulous and a bit ridiculous.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#96

Post by rwmj »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #47
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.

If he really doesn't cheat at board games, the power move would be to completely ignore the accuser.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#97

Post by Uhhrrr »

hyhatqtv wrote: post #26
djeastm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Before the court packing threat, they were limiting the federal government's power to regulate commerce within states. Which is a power it doesn't actually have.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#98

Post by nullbio »

alex1138 wrote: post #61
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 bu…

Of course, we all make mistakes. Just like when he accidentally made a free VPN to spy on peoples traffic. Sorry bros, networking malfunction!

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#99

Post by alt227 »

spinningslate wrote: post #93
alex1138 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

I’d hazard a guess they might be referring to an ex-British politician who went on to have a high profile role in comms at meta.

Why is everyone beating around the bush?

Its Nick Clegg

Post reply on HN