111–120 of 734 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the 60 minutes interview her lawyer cites part of Dodd-Frank that protects whistleblowers going to the SEC. Their position is that the documents are material to investors re:valuation and that Facebook was negligent by not providing it. https://youtu.be/_Lx5VmAdZSI?t=596
The problem is that would cover pretty much anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She has politics written all over - not to worry.
That would be my assumption, or some kind of public policy position. Not to say that her concerns aren't genuine, but she has to be aware that for better or for worse she won't have an easy time finding further work in the industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everyone I know who works in FAANG, FB specifically, and PMs even more specifically, really have little idea of whats going on in the bigger picture That's exactly the thing about the banality of evil, any individual person working on some small subsystem or component of something in a FAANG, to them it might not immediately be apparent that what they're doing is enabling the corrosion of democracy and discourse. A…
You just compared a social media company to a weapons manufacturer. Elsewhere, I see comparisons to cigarettes, oxycontin, gambling. It is easy to see how one might think Facebook to be evil if they are constantly bombarded with these false equivalencies.
There is something that doesn't sit right with me about the whistleblower. Yes, she is a data scientist which gives her many many extra points. But, she was a PM for 2 years in FAANG. Her actual scope of the what was going on in FB as a huge org, as she's trying to comment on (the "I want to fix FB" quotes from 60 minutes) Everyone I know who works in FAANG, FB specifically, and PMs even more specifically, really hav…
I mean, they tried bringing Zuckerberg in, but he apparently just lied, so she seems like the best option to get honest informed answers.
I think a lot of people are choosing to ignore that a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values. For example, Standard Oil did not break any laws in its ruthless consolidation of the nascent oil industry. In fact, it exploited the law to allow i…
To clarify, can you specify exactly what law you would like made? What do you want to be done exactly ? I would rather take the stance of feed algorithms and moderation logs be PUBLICLY available. Transparency instead of censorship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your point here? This lady is a PRODUCT manger and heads up the entire product, in this case Civic Integrity, which was directly charged with tamping down hate on the platform related to civic engagement. She is not a PROJECT manager like what you deal with on your engineering team. She is by definition an expert on this segment of Facebook and you're dismissing her wrongly for being a "PM". She's a Harvard MB…
Her engineering degree from Olin is more impressive than her MBA from Harvard. If you highlight just one then highlight that. Every idiot with money can get an MBA from Harvard (this is going to be down-voted badly I know; but don't get me wrong, I worked with a lot of very smart MBAs but also with many idiots; the distribution is very wide) Also, a Facebook PM is not a senior role. While she does have a lot of exper…
There is something that doesn't sit right with me about the whistleblower. Yes, she is a data scientist which gives her many many extra points. But, she was a PM for 2 years in FAANG. Her actual scope of the what was going on in FB as a huge org, as she's trying to comment on (the "I want to fix FB" quotes from 60 minutes) Everyone I know who works in FAANG, FB specifically, and PMs even more specifically, really hav…
More like 15 years. I've known Frances since 2009 when she was a PM at Google, where she worked on a few products including Google+. She also spent several years an Pinterest which, while not technically a FAANG, is certainly a major social network that does lots of algorithmic ranking. She is definitely an expert in the topics she is testifying about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the 60 minutes interview her lawyer cites part of Dodd-Frank that protects whistleblowers going to the SEC. Their position is that the documents are material to investors re:valuation and that Facebook was negligent by not providing it. https://youtu.be/_Lx5VmAdZSI?t=596
The problem is that would cover pretty much anything.
1. To all the governments that want to tighten more control on communication, this is great kindling to show people "we the government should further control tech for your own good".
2. You can hardly get the US gov to agree on anything, but when it's about hating each other as much in the digital world as in the physical world via a common source, everyone's at attention.
3. Facebook is so ill-equipped to handle most of the issues that were brought forth. The expectation that the gov/people places on Facebook =/= reality of what Facebook can deliver. Facebook is running around frantically trying to manage an existing mess of a switchboard, they are not going to pull a miracle.
I think a lot of people are choosing to ignore that a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values. For example, Standard Oil did not break any laws in its ruthless consolidation of the nascent oil industry. In fact, it exploited the law to allow i…
To clarify, can you specify exactly what law you would like made? What do you want to be done exactly ? I would rather take the stance of feed algorithms and moderation logs be PUBLICLY available. Transparency instead of censorship.