Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees

nytimes.com

121–130 of 274 posts

Re: Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees

#121
post #15
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

most companies have pretty strict internal controls for this sort of thing This does not ring true to me at all.

It was true at Google. It's certainly true at financial institutions. I dunno about Amazon. I'm not sure what other comparisons would be relevant here. EDIT/NOTE: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16675493

Unfortunately the internal tech infrastructures of many (not all) financial institutions are a mess of many decades of mergers and acquisitions resulting in a Rube Goldberg like backend of seemingly endless unnecessary complexity and dysfunction with, in many cases, superficial controls around who gets access to what.

Re: Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees

#122

Facebook's Board of Directors is a remarkable collection of silent-yet-complicit heavyweights: -Marc Andreessen; -Erskine Bowles ("President Emeritus of the University of North Carolina" and "White House Chief of Staff from 1996 to 1998"); -Ken Chenault ("Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of American Express Company"); -Susan Desmond-Hellmann ("Chief Executive Officer of The Gates Foundation" and former "Chancello…

"He's surrounded himself with people just like him -- Silicon Valley entrepreneurs," says Stuart Grant, who deposed the Facebook founder during a lawsuit filed by investors opposed to the company's proposal. Facebook withdrew the proposal last month, just days before Zuckerberg was set to testify in the suit in Delaware Chancery Court.

...

There's a reason for diversity -- it gives you a mix of opinions and ideas," says Grant, partner and co-founder of Grant & Eisenhofer, a Wilmington, Delaware, firm that specializes in securities and corporate-governance cases.

The board's near-uniformity of experience has led to a consensus of opinion that defers to Zuckerberg on all matters, Grant told CNBC. That can stray from what is best for shareholders."

For example, allowing Zuckerberg to reduce his economic interest in Facebook "dramatically" -- by selling tens of millions of shares -- while allowing him to maintain "absolute control" over corporate decision-making was a bad idea that the board should have voted down, Grant argues.

"You never want to divide economic consequences from decision-making," he says.

Zuckerberg's plan would have created three classes of shares, one with no voting rights, and allowed him to maintain voting control of the company even after selling most of his stake."

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/05/attorney-who-deposed-mark-zu...

(Poll: Do you think it would be interesting to see the video from that deposition?)

Lead up:

"Discovery revealed that Zuckerberg in fact used his relationship with Andreessen to undermine the special committee process. Andreessen leaked Zuckerberg confidential information about the committee members' thoughts and concerns, and coached Zuckerberg through his negotiations with the committee. In one instance, Andreessen and Zuckerberg texted back and forth during a group call with the committee, with Andreessen telling Zuckerberg things like, "This line of argument is not helping. J" and "THIS is the key topic.""

...

"Trial was set for Tuesday, Sept. 26, 2017, with Zuckerberg slated to testify as the plaintiffs' first witness. On Thursday evening, Sept. 21, however, Zuckerberg asked Facebook's board to withdraw the reclassification, which it did. This withdrawal mooted the plaintiffs' litigation and averted the billions of dollars of harm to Class A stockholders that plaintiffs sought to prevent."

Source: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/....

"But Andreessen, a venture capitalist at Andreessen Horowitz and a long-time Facebook board member, is a close Zuckerberg ally. While on the committee, Andreessen slipped Zuckerberg information about their progress and concerns, helping Zuckerberg negotiate against them, according to court documents. The documents include the transcripts of private texts between the two men, revealing the inner workings of the board of directors at a pivotal time for Facebook.

   ... 
Most of Andreessen`s texts to Zuckerberg during the negotiations over the non-voting shares focused on how to talk to the other two committee members. Susan Desmond-Hellmann, Facebook`s lead independent director and chief executive officer of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, also led the special committee and discussed the matter on its behalf with Zuckerberg personally -- a call that Andreessen helped Zuckerberg prepare for.

Bowles, former President Bill Clinton`s chief of staff and past president of the University of North Carolina system, was especially skeptical of Zuckerberg`s proposition, as depicted in the suit. Many of Andreessen`s texts focused on persuading him. Among other things, Bowles worried that one of the concessions Zuckerberg wanted -- to allow the billionaire to serve two years in government without losing control of Facebook -- would look particularly irresponsible, according to court filings. Bowles did not respond to requests for comment.

Andreessen sought to persuade Bowles that if Zuckerberg went into politics, the government would likely require him to give up control of Facebook anyway, so the point was moot, according to the documents. A couple weeks later, Andreessen prevailed, and the vote was brought to shareholders. (The stock reclassification is on hold pending the results of the lawsuit, though.)

"The cat`s in the bag and the bag`s in the river,`` he messaged Zuckerberg. "Does that mean the cat`s dead?" Zuckerberg texted back, not understanding the spy speak.

   Andreessen replied: "Mission accomplished :-)""
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-08/facebook-...

The deposition must have gone well. Heres what the plaintiffs lawyer had to say before Zuckerberg withdrew his proposal.

"This case is said to mark just the second time Zuckerberg testifies as a witness. He previously testified earlier this year over a lawsuit against Facebook-owned Oculus -- a case Facebook lost.

Stuart Grant, the attorney representing the shareholders in the dispute, didn't mince words. He suggested Zuckerberg's limited courtroom experience puts him at a disadvantage in this case.

"That gives me an advantage because I've been doing this for 30 plus years," Grant told CNN Tech. "If we were sitting down to do coding together, I'd bet on Mark, but we're not coding."

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/20/technology/business/mark-zuc...

Re: Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees

#123
post #66
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respect Google and their engineering chops as much as the next person, they are truly world class programmers, but how the holy hell is everyone daydreaming that they don’t work for an advertising company? You sell and use people’s data to get money: this is the business plan. Are people working there really so nieve(sic) as to believe that this is surprising?

Former Googler here. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Googlers understand they work for an advertising company with a gigantic and generally well-run software "engineering" department. I don't mean that in any derogatory sense. Well-regulated advertising is important in helping consumers make informed purchasing decisions.

>Well-regulated advertising is important in helping consumers make informed purchasing decisions.

Do you think the adtech industy is "well-regulated"?

Re: Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees

#126
post #20
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was true at Google. It's certainly true at financial institutions. I dunno about Amazon. I'm not sure what other comparisons would be relevant here. EDIT/NOTE: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16675493

I believe it's true of Google! I do not believe it's true in general.

[deleted]

Re: Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees

#127
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By giving access to your data, you are saying it's ok to take that data and pander to your psyche in some fashion. You may not see direct advertising in your browser, but it leads back to how strategists decide to engage your physical community. And even if you block ads, your friends may not. Friends will influence you through your feed, based on the ads they see, based on your data.

Yeah but my data - I'm middle aged, read HN, speculate a bit in crypto etc - is not anything I'm worried about people knowing. I can understand if people want to keep stuff secret but I don't have much of that and what I do I don't post on the internet in any form. I've never really thought of facebook as much more private than HN - ie not private.

But it’s not the secret data people are worried about with Cambridge Analytica. It’s mundane stuff that works to define a profile of your beliefs and mental vulnerabilities. And a big issue is many people see their data as not a big deal because they haven’t posted any nude photos to Facebook. Time to reframe how we view what is sensitive in the age of ML

Re: Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees

#129
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think so, but most companies have pretty strict internal controls for this sort of thing. Access is also carefully logged so a leaker is pretty much guaranteed to get caught at which point they'd immediately lose their job and likely face criminal prosecution. With so much to lose and so little to gain internal leaks of this sort are extremely rare.

Who watches the watchers? #1 - There's always a back door. I did some medical records stuff for a while. I looked myself up, just to confirm for myself how trivial it was to do. Yup, there I was. Which is why I insist that all data at rest is encrypted. (I have yet to win this argument.) #2 - Our "portal" product had access logs for auditing. Plus permissions, consent trees, delegation. The usual features. Alas. We a…

HITRUST CSF is a framework for auditably proving HIPPA compliance. It prescribes controls such as encrypting data at rest. If you have a business relationship with a company which provides you PHI without explicit user consent you must have an agreement (a BAA) with the third party which puts them under the same requirements (backed up with third party audits).

Everything you’re describing sounds like it’s either incredibly fly by night, not in the US, or substantially out of date. If the last two aren’t true, you have a situation that is literally illegal.

Re: Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees

#130

Can someone explain to me why the Cambridge Analytica story is making people so much angrier than the later revelation that Facebook was scraping call+text info? That seems to be the larger problem to me. Somewhere at Facebook there is a team of people who wrote software to scrape, store and analyze the personal call+text data that users didn't explicitly mean to give to Facebook. The data that Cambridge Analytica at…

I'd imagine it's at least partly expectations - people know that Facebook has their data (even if not the full extent), so adding an additional class of data doesn't change that fundamental understanding or register as strongly. The fact that a third-party can pull your data out of Facebook is less obvious.

The fact that it was used for political ends probably makes a difference as well, both in the amount of coverage it is receiving and that it makes the use of data into a more concrete issue (it's much easier to understand "this is what the data was used for" then "Facebook has your data and that's bad for hypothetical/abstract reasons").

> Isn't the Cambridge Analytics headline really just, "Group doesn't follow website's terms of service from five years ago"

That's the act, but I'd say the usage/intent behind doing so is part of the story.

Post reply on HN