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

161–170 of 320 posts

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#161

Post by dofm »

Macha wrote: post #145
khurs wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. What's the allegation?

Clegg later held the same position but was fired as Facebook decided that it was more politically favorable to stop employing someone in the role that was involved in content moderation (including actions against Donald Trump) and instead hire someone with connections to Donald Trump in January 2025, due to some sort of recent event at at that time. I guess that the thread is implying his position would have given hi…

I think the story about the Trump decision is likely to have a politically explosive aspect to it.

Because Zuckerberg had dragged his feet about creating the board until they needed the board in order to launder a decision they knew they might need to make.

But he wasn't just the oversight board; he was president of global affairs for three-odd years.

I don't intend to give Clegg credit, particularly. I'm not a fan. I'm just saying that people like him write books and he will surely have been approached to do so.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#162

Post by tough »

SoftTalker wrote: post #84
999900000999 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some companies are more evil than others. Some will lie repeatedly to even avoid paying out a settlement. In America you have no rights, your lucky if you get paid on time. Even then the actual process to get your back owed wages usually isn't worth the effort. I worked for a clown once who waited 30 days to tell me he only pays every 60 days. A friend of mine wasted a full week training, and the employer decided the…

Actually not paying earned wages is one of the few things that has a lot of teeth around it. Federal rules typically award back pay and an equal amount as liquidated damages, plus attorney's fees and court costs, and states may add penalties of their own.

does this still apply as a contractor and not employee?

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#164

Post by SoftTalker »

tough wrote: post #162
SoftTalker wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually not paying earned wages is one of the few things that has a lot of teeth around it. Federal rules typically award back pay and an equal amount as liquidated damages, plus attorney's fees and court costs, and states may add penalties of their own.

does this still apply as a contractor and not employee?

I don't know but probably not. A contractor may have other remedies such as filing a lien on assets.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#166

Post by tough »

SoftTalker wrote: post #164
tough wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

does this still apply as a contractor and not employee?

I don't know but probably not. A contractor may have other remedies such as filing a lien on assets.

I hope i dont have to find out, but it seems like anything in the US that requires lawyers would by default be an expensive option to pursue (from my lack of knowledge standing, at least, feels like that)

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#167

Post by r3trohack3r »

sterlind wrote: post #152
codexb wrote: post #125

"Whistleblowing" requires something illegal to have occurred. It doesn't appear any of the disclosures being made about Facebook allege anything illegal. They are just disparaging insider information. Anyone who has worked in tech for any amount of time has signed an NDA. They are not nefarious.

Merriam Webster defines whistleblowing as: > one who reveals something covert or who informs against another especially : an employee who brings wrongdoing by an employer or by other employees to the attention of a government or law enforcement agency Wikipedia further asserts: > Whistleblowing is the activity of a person, often an employee, revealing information about activity within a private or public organization…

> Arguably, nothing the NSA was doing was illegal.

The Supreme Court disagreed; the surveillance program was illegal.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#168

Post by KaiserPro »

Macha wrote: post #145
khurs wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. What's the allegation?

Clegg later held the same position but was fired as Facebook decided that it was more politically favorable to stop employing someone in the role that was involved in content moderation (including actions against Donald Trump) and instead hire someone with connections to Donald Trump in January 2025, due to some sort of recent event at at that time. I guess that the thread is implying his position would have given hi…

> Clegg later held the same position

Clegg was more senior than wynn-williams. Kaplan reported to Clegg

I don't think Clegg will do something like that, because its not really in his way of doing things. He is extraordinarily well connected, and is currently riding the board of directors gravy train.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#169

Post by KaiserPro »

bhickey wrote: post #7

> Kaplan is an oaf whose plan to provide paid internet access to refugee camps falls apart once he learns that refugees in camps don't have any money (he also takes points off of Wynn-Williams' workplace evaluation for being "unresponsive" over a period when she was in a near-death coma). The same Joel Kaplan who was involved in a coup?

> The same Joel Kaplan who was involved in a coup?

which coup, you're gonna have to be more specific

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#170

Post by laughing_man »

codexb wrote: post #125

"Whistleblowing" requires something illegal to have occurred. It doesn't appear any of the disclosures being made about Facebook allege anything illegal. They are just disparaging insider information. Anyone who has worked in tech for any amount of time has signed an NDA. They are not nefarious.

And if something illegal has happened, non-disclosure agreements can't be enforced regarding disclosure of that activity. At least, not in the US.
Post reply on HN