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

101–110 of 320 posts

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#101

Post by jordanb »

dahart wrote: post #67
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 o…

This is called "Fuckery:" I tell you a lie. You know it's a lie. I know you know it's a lie. But you have to pretend that you believe it because of the power I have over you.

The Fuckery is a demonstration of that power.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#102

Post by alok-g »

>> ... conditions of employment required her to sign a contract that bound her to silence (nondisclosure), forbade her from speaking ill of the company (nondisparagement), and denied her access to the legal system in all her dealings with Meta (binding arbitration).

Aren't the clauses on non-disclosure, arbitration, etc., common in non-Meta employment contracts as well?

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#103

Post by techterrier »

alt227 wrote: post #99
spinningslate wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I agree its Nick

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#104

Post by stephc_int13 »

It is the same reasoning as with the regular Decimation. It is all about disciplining their employees.

And it works.

We're not saying many ex or current Meta employees talking about their experiences here, even if I am sure that HN is pretty popular among this crowd.

And of course this is not unique to Zuck/Meta. We don't hear much from people working for Musk either.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#105

Post by avalys »

GlibMonkeyDeath wrote: post #32
avalys wrote: post #16

“Zuck is also revealed to have given the Chinese state access to all of Facebook and the power to censor content they disliked, as part of a failed bid to get permission to offer a Facebook service in China.” This did not happen and I’m not aware of any evidence or allegations that it did. Williams claims that Meta indicated they would accept China’s demand to give the Chinese government access to Chinese users’ data…

That's a quote from Corey Doctorow, not Sarah Wynn-Williams. I read her book. She was pretty careful to use your language (i.e., that it was offered, but not implemented, and was China-only data from what she related. Not that that is great either, of course...) Her main allegations (that Facebook/Meta optimizes for profit at the expense of everything else) seem pretty unsurprising. I mean, given what has been observ…

I’m referring to Doctorow’s credibility, not Williams.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#107

Post by UncleOxidant »

game_the0ry wrote: post #71

People complain about meta all the time. Clearly, its a scumbag company. There is only one way to make him hurt: boycott all meta products. Uninstall facebook, instagram, whatsapp. Edit -- I am getting downvoted for this comment. I can't say I am surprised, most of you are too programmed to think for yourselves.

Yeah, I don't understand the downvotes either. Complaining is one thing (and it's certainly valid to complain about Meta), but nothing's going to change if a lot of people still use their service. Sure, one person getting off of the Meta platform isn't going to do anything, but millions could have an effect - if only to give less power to the company.

I deleted my Meta account last year and haven't missed it.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#108

Post by andsoitis »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #104

It is the same reasoning as with the regular Decimation. It is all about disciplining their employees. And it works. We're not saying many ex or current Meta employees talking about their experiences here, even if I am sure that HN is pretty popular among this crowd. And of course this is not unique to Zuck/Meta. We don't hear much from people working for Musk either.

Could it be that people actually like their work there?

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#109

Post by pdonis »

Uhhrrr wrote: post #97
hyhatqtv wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And then they reversed course with Wickard v. Filburn and said it was perfectly OK for Congress to regulate, not just commerce within a single state, but farmers growing their own food on their own land for their own use. So FDR ended up getting what he wanted anyway.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#110

Post by hedora »

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.

At the time, the court was nearly as bad as currently.

In other news, Alito is claiming the Comstock Act is in full force, not the narrowed enforcement we’ve seen for the last, what 100 years?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_Act_of_1873

According to that theory, they can censor mail and any other common carrier (objects and information) on moral grounds. They want to apply it to abortion pills first, but the statements made by the court imply they’ll be clamping down on “obscenities”, sex ed, political speech etc.

Note that this court already overturned the right to privacy (and the 4th amendment) when they overturned Roe v Wade.

That, plus mandatory age checks, porn bans, vpn bans, etc are already happening in blue and red states throughout the US.

By the time 2028 rolls around, if we don’t elect a president willing to charge the current clown show with treason, we will not have a democracy in the US. Court packing would be a tragic under-reaction.

Post reply on HN