Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

Post by deepfriedchokes » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 5:57 PM UTC

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…

Post by sowbug » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 6:01 PM UTC

fwipsy wrote: post #91

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-emplo…

Post by jfengel » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 6:03 PM UTC

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.

Post by dagenleg » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 6:06 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #51

tetris11 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

The point is a guillotine somewhere else is good. Guillotines at home don’t particularly hurt the rich as a class. (It’s debated whether France’s elite actually consolidated wealth and power through its revolutions.)

Post by Terr_ » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 6:12 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #62

throwyawayyyy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.”