Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

>Considering the polarizing nature of the topic, it seems unlikely there would be a bipartisan agreement on the issue without classified intel to get people on both sides of the aisle behind it.

Congressional support for US global military empire has, unfortunately, always enjoyed complete bipartisan support.

>But we have also had reports of activity traced back to Russia from other organizations.

All sorts of organizations released conclusions, none of these conclusions come with any evidence that be scrutinized. Further, on the rare occasions when arms were twisted under oath, all of these conclusions turned out to be completely baseless. One of the most prominent debunked claims was that of Crowdstrike that the DNC servers were hacked by Russians. In fact, in December 2017 when testifying before the House Intelligence Committee, CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry admitted that not only was there no evidence that Russians hacked the DNC, they had no evidence that it was hacked at all, rather than leaked, or exfiltrated in some other manner. I was never a Trump supporter, didn't vote for him, don't like him at all, but I hate false propaganda even more. Whether it was the CIA and the DOJ doctoring documents in order to spy on US citizens or DNC lawyers feeding false information to the FBI (as detailed in the recent Durham indictment), all of the publicly available information (which after 5 years is voluminous) indicating a "Russian attack on our election" have all been based on lies and baseless assertions. Given this, and the documented record of lies and obfuscations peddled by our "intelligence agencies" for decades, its clear that the conspiracy theory here is the one being pushed by the Washington blob and not people who demand evidence for their wild and oft debunked assertions.

I watched the live stream. The capitol police opened the barriers in front of the building to let them pass. They seemed friendly towards the protestors.

I had an experience with Frances in 2018 while at a company prior to her joining Facebook. She was somewhat unprofessional with me by abruptly cancelling a meeting without a very good excuse or much followup. I believe the CTO had asked her to take a meeting with me but she mostly disregarded that request.

I don't see much that is substantial coming out of this. She's brought hell upon herself while playing in a mostly liberal reform narrative. She significantly violated her NDA and probably violated some trade secret theft laws.

The company we both worked at was probably engaged in some forms of reverse discrimination.

Personally when I interviewed for the Fake News ML team at Facebook they had me interview with a guy who had a thick Russian accent. Anyone who works in big tech has experienced a litany of dysfunction. We also know what a self-promoting egoist looks like :)

This is just a media headline as meaningless as the congressional hearings that have been going on since 2017.

In my opinion and life choices, the difference between a bad actor and a bystander is often that they see the brokenness of their surroundings but they persist in rationalizing what's wrong with it rather than walking away. Becoming a whistleblower is just a masochistic way to walk away or it is a play for self-gain. The whole machine of Silicon Valley has stunk for almost a decade.

I suspect Frances sees something to gain with this, and unlike James Damore the same media machine Frances points the finger at will view her favorably on the mere basis that she is a "she".

So goes the crusade to right wrongs with double standards...

have they defined what "hate speech" and "misinformation" mean these days?

More often than not these terms are used by one party to silence & suppress opposing views of another.

Thankfully Zuckerberg doesn't give a damn, one would be hard-pressed to find a better CEO for social media company who can stand up to all this whining.

> Do silicon valley companies not screen for intensity of political views during job interviews in order to prevent issues like this?

It would seem that they actively select for it.

> It would seem like it would be better for business to just not let people join the organization if they're relatively likely to one day go on a moral crusade.

To be fair: Blue Team straight up hit the panic button when Trump was elected in 2016.

From a non-US perspective, Trump was... grating? Talked a big game, but clearly didn't have the leadership chops. His "Law and Order" tweets during all the rioting were absolutely pathetic. Blue Team, however, has clearly gone quite insane.

At this point, I'm sort of politically homeless, which puts me in good company. Republicans talk hard about winding the clock back but don't actually seem to do much of anything, Libertarians pretend there is no clock, and Democrats evangelize that we'll finally escape the oppression of time itself once we've burned the clock to cinders.

What a time to be alive.