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

171–180 of 320 posts

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#171

Post by notahacker »

dofm wrote: post #151
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.

I am making no allegation, to be clear. I was just having a bit of fun with the way I said it. But it's obvious that Facebook want to make writing anything about them in a book and then publicising it an absolutely miserable experience. I would say the very obvious target of such a message is Nick Clegg, no? He's already written one memoir of his time in politics (didn't sell that well because he didn't have all that…

I think the flip side is that Nick Clegg is probably not a great choice of person to threaten. He's already had the utterly miserable experience of going from unusually popular politician to person personally blamed for reneging on commitments in the coalition government (a route he chose for himself), he's not American and doesn't live there any more or particularly want to go back, and is politically connected enough to not struggle to put together a legal team that's happy to take on Meta, potentially without him even needing to dip into his fairly deep pockets.

And frankly getting into a shit fight with an unpopular American billionaire where he's actually the good guy would be pretty good reputation laundering for Clegg, and make a book Brits would be inclined to dismiss as self-serving nonsense sound like it had actual revelations in it. And he'd probably greatly enjoy doing a round of podcasts and TV interviews where he's not the bad guy saying sorry any more.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#172

Post by rjsw »

KaiserPro wrote: post #169
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

This [1] one.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#173

Post by KaiserPro »

liendolucas wrote: post #18

All that it was ruled against her should be illegal. It should also be illegal for companies to add abusive contract clauses that directly go against basic rights as freedom of speech. Disgusting set of human beings Zuck and company. Read the book and then decide if it's worth continuing on FB.

The problem for Wynn-Williams is that she would have signed a non-disparage agreement with facebook to get that healthcare and payment after being sacked. She hints at it in the book.

The reason why I assert this is because everyone who accepts a payoff from facebook also has to sign one. Like Facebook's employment contracts, which are essentially identical apart from the bonus, name, title and location, I strongly suspect the non-disparagement agreement is also largely the same.

They basically say that "Meta agrees to not call you a piece of shit, but you agree to never talk about facebook in public. if you do, we will ask for all that money back, as a debt"

Now, as its contract law, and depending on where the contract says its valid, there might be ways to allow what Wynn-Williams is doing. After all, you cant contract out of legal obligations.

If Cory spent more time actually doing research, rather than reeling off allegories like an LLM, we might have got some actual insight from him. Alas, its down to randoms on HN to do that.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#174

Post by ojbyrne »

alpineman wrote: post #159
dofm wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am making no allegation, to be clear. I was just having a bit of fun with the way I said it. But it's obvious that Facebook want to make writing anything about them in a book and then publicising it an absolutely miserable experience. I would say the very obvious target of such a message is Nick Clegg, no? He's already written one memoir of his time in politics (didn't sell that well because he didn't have all that…

It is weird that her book doesn't mention Nick Clegg once

Maybe because he started after she left?

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#175

Post by alex1138 »

KaiserPro wrote: post #169
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

Brooks Brothers demonstration for the 2000 election

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#176

Post by 999900000999 »

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.

That's the other game a lot of employers play, they'll classify you as a 1099 to avoid those pesky worker rights.

You have no other options because you need the money.

My friend who wasn't paid at all was told by a lawyer it wasn't worth pursuing.

So much of our legal system, and really society is based off gentlemen agreements. You don't still someone out of 600$ in wages because you don't do that.

When that gentlemen agreement is broken, realistically no lawyer is going to open a case over 600$, you have no real recourse.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#177

Post by LearnYouALisp »

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 read that last part in Hugh Dennis' voice

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#178

Post by teravor »

if you fancy a potential career as a whitleblower, you should consider writing what you know when you know it and secretly publishing commitment hashes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commitment_scheme). it's much more credible and unassailable when the charge that the claims were made long after the fact for specific purposes is impossible. keep the relevant info in a dedicated password manager vault.

a way to secretly publish commitment hashes is to deposit some small amount of crypto into an address and use that address to embed the hashes into the blockchain (either as metadata or just destroying some crypto a few cents a time). it is important to string all the commitments together in some way (such as coming from the same address) otherwise there could be some doubt about the strategy (for example, spraying claims and disclosing only the ones you want to).

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#179

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#180

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

KaiserPro wrote: post #168
Macha wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Always was. Clegg is notorious for getting the Tories into power in 2010 by promising some basic decency, then betraying those promises to prop up the regime responsible for austerity.

He's always been an operator. Moving to Meta after he left politics was an "Oh, of course."

Post reply on HN