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

201–210 of 320 posts

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#201

Post by triceratops »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #160
mindslight wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how much this applies to cheating at Catan. Regardless of social standing, few people are going to stop you from cheating at Catan because it helps everyone's goal - to be done with the game of Catan. Although perhaps repeatedly making people play Catan is itself that social power move.

> everyone's goal - to be done with the game of Catan Is it possible you're confusing Catan with Monopoly or Pictionary or any party game ever?

Boardgames catching strays

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#202

Post by game_the0ry »

gverrilla wrote: post #144
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.

'guillotine' > boycott

If you don’t have the gumption to delete insta from your iPhone, you’ll never muster the courage for violence.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#203

Post by Biologist123 »

notahacker wrote: post #171
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…

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 enou…

Eh? The more standard view is that Clegg put in place efforts to ward off regulation as long as possible…he’s as popular as Jimmy Savile in the UK.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#204

Post by dspillett »

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.

Could also be a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#205

Post by bayarearefugee »

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.

> Anyone who has worked in tech for any amount of time has signed an NDA. They are not nefarious.

Non-Disclosure agreements to protect a company's legitimate business and trade secrets aren't nefarious.

But I'd argue that Non-Disparagement agreements or non-disparagement clauses that block disclosure of inappropriate personal behavior is, in fact, nefarious.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#206

Post by gsk22 »

rustystump wrote: post #120
kylecazar wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This applies to Elon's incredibly strange video game cheating scandal too. It's pathetic and weird.

That was i think the most revealing thing about his character bar none because of how mundane it all was. Anyone with a tiny bit of video game background called that out from miles away. It was so pathetic. Richest dude in world with spaceship company. Has nothing to prove. Cheats, lies, and gaslights when caught. Has to be “number one” at a video game that has virtually zero skill where rank is almost entirely who g…

Did he cheat at other games too? I knew of the Path of Exile 2 incident, but I'd hardly call that a zero-skill game.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#208

Post by Anon1096 »

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.

That's because you pretty quickly catch downvotes from people with sour grapes whenever you talk good about working at big tech. Quadruply so for companies much more hated than average like Palantir/Meta/Oracle. It's just what echo chamber downvoting culture gives you it doesn't really have to do with what's happening internally. They're very very happy to spill beans and talk about the current environment on Blind which is a lot less hostile.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#209

Post by thayne »

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.

As used in common speech, whistleblowing also applies to exposing unethical or dangerous behavior, even if it is technically legal.

> Anyone who has worked in tech for any amount of time has signed an NDA.

Just because something is ubiquitous doesn't mean it's ok.

Not that NDAs are always bad, but they should have limited scope, and maybe expirations.

And blanket non-disparagement agreements that prevent employees from ever saying anything bad about their employer are clearly bad.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#210

Post by thayne »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #167
sterlind wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And if they had ruled the other way, would he not have been a whistleblower?
Post reply on HN