Live data from Hacker News

Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

thehill.com

121–130 of 135 posts

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#121
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is mentioned in her book. In the book she says Meta wanted to build the pipeline, despite the warnings. But yes, ultimately the construction fell through. She is not claiming the pipeline exists today.

I am really curious to hear what evidence there is of that high-capacity fiberoptic undersea cable connecting LA to Hong-Kong (being worked on by many companies like Google/Meta/etc.) ever having any plans of being used as a “backdoor” for China to intercept all the user data. Either there is some massive grand conspiracy going on between all those different companies (a good number of which have exactly zero product…

> Any record of congress doing that for those reasons

I think it was part of Clean Networks Initiative, there's ongoing strategic game to cut PRC out of subsea infra business, just like telcom. IIRC a bunch of sanctions a few years ago killed many cable projects or at least pushed PRC out as partner. Cables landing in PRC didn't. Cables landing in ASEAN but with PRC suppliers/builders ended up switching to other suppliers/builders.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#122
post #98
post #78

All I see in this story are a bunch of things that were under discussion at some point, but never happened. But then, “Meta considered doing business in China, evaluated and negotiated with the Chinese government what would be required to do so, and then did not proceed” isn’t a story that is going to sell a lot of books or get her a lot of attention. Another tell that this is a stunt for attention and not a genuine…

Read her book Careless People [1] where she shared many details. A crucial aspect of the China story is that FB/Meta conveyed to the Chinese officials that they were ready to do anything they asked for in the hope that they will be allowed in China. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Careless-People-Cautionary-Power-Idea...

IS there a TLDR for why it didn't happen. Reporting at the time said internal dissent (woke/liberal internal culture + worker power) at the time killed the project like it did similar initiative at Google (Project DragonFly).

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blogging platforms also allow people to connect and share, but are prob less profitable. A lot of the role of blogs was taken over by social media, this created larger networks but with a lot of downsides. But these downsides are not inherent to all the online platforms where people can connect and share.

Blogging is typically unidirectional, like TV or radio. You get to hear what someone says, but unless they turn on comments and actually read them, you don't get to have a conversation.

In the blogosphere (at least the part I was in) most used to have comments turned on, and at very least pingbacks were definitely common practice . There used to be communities around blogs with similar theme/views and usually blogs had a sidebar with links to other blogs, linking to the newest articles there. People used to write and refer to what others wrote. I assume there must have been also isolated blogs, as there are practically isolated people in social media, but there were definitely also very vibrant communities.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blogging is typically unidirectional, like TV or radio. You get to hear what someone says, but unless they turn on comments and actually read them, you don't get to have a conversation.

In the blogosphere (at least the part I was in) most used to have comments turned on, and at very least pingbacks were definitely common practice . There used to be communities around blogs with similar theme/views and usually blogs had a sidebar with links to other blogs, linking to the newest articles there. People used to write and refer to what others wrote. I assume there must have been also isolated blogs, as t…

So did Usenet, no one cares. They simply require you go to 18 different sites to follow what friends are up to. Tumblr would just be the ad tech company instead, or the blog hosting company, for a while it was MySpace.

It's either free and supported by ads, or self hosted or comes with a cost and doesn't gain mass adoption.

When did the comments here get to the point they can't think past 1st order magnitude effects or remember genuinely how things actually were. Your grandma didn't have a blog to follow the grandkids. Yeah, there's a one off exception or two, but nothing at the scale of MySpace and later social media companies.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> …Communism wasn't an authoritarian movement back then… When and where was that?

Answer: Never Marx aimed to theorize on a worker based authority. Anti dictator or anti oligarchy, sure. Unfortunatley he outlined inadequate protections against an oligarchy, because he believed a society could self regulate equality (between workers). Google: Marx on Authority

Marx is like a doctor who diagnoses a disease then offers a cure that is worse than the disease itself. It's a bit like removing a leg to fix a broken toe. I figured this out in college thinking about it for 10 minutes, I don't get anyone whose observed human nature for 25 years not to see the obvious flaws in it and why it always breaks down.

He also fundamentally misunderstands human nature and our ability to care about anything outside a "tribe" or rather put aside our own desires for those not in our immediate tribe. It simply breaks down at scale.

Just because someone can adequately critique and point out the flaws in a system does not make them qualified to architect a working solution. Especially first draft. The problem with communism is will always devolve into authoritarianism, because its the only way to enforce people putting the needs of others over their own, not to mention those in charge will do whats best to serve their own ruling tribe.

It's how we evolved, its human psychology, and at mass population scale you can't escape it. Capitalism or trade at least to some extent incentivizes mutual benefits on a basic level, but Marx tosses out the one thing about it that works, otherwise the same problems that occur in capitalism as it devolves come about the same way they do in every other form of human governance, with groups/organizations with a shared purpose or identity (tribes) jockeying for authority and power to serve their own interests.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#126
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s amusing that the right used to complain about “information warfare”—Marxist infiltration of universities, newspapers, and Hollywood—while now the left does so.

Communism wasn't an authoritarian movement back then, it was anti authoritarian. What is being opposed is authoritarianism. China isn't really communist, and neither was the ussr. It's just a regressive authoritarian regime with different propaganda. Authoritarianism is fundamentally right wing. Freedom for the right wing is fundamentally doublespeak for freedom for the oligarchs to gain power and oppress. Secondaril…

>Authoritarianism is fundamentally right wing.

Go look at a political compass. Authoritarianism is when you use force to push your ideals, whether they be radical/liberal (left) or orthodox/conservative)(right) ideals on a populace with extreme authority. Communism is considered left/radical, if you use government force to make people adopt it, that's using authority, hence authoritarianism. Please learn definitions and political axis before making silly arguments.

China isn't really communist because they tried it and people starved, then they had to go back to capitalism or some degree of it, but kept the authoritarianism, and effectively became some hybrid version that leans fascist.

Communism simply never works at scale, socialism can to an extent, assuming its not abused and there's a homogeneous society with shared cultural values and purpose that includes to contribute and to not abuse it. Hence Nordic socialism, which of course breaks down when you bring in those that don't share those values as its doing now. I've heard enough Swedes bitch about Eastern European migrants abusing their social welfare to say nothing of now to see the idealism fall apart when self interested parties without the same cultural values enter en masse.

Human psychology being about protecting and serving the interests of your tribe and things like "Dunbar's number" and the limit of the number of people you can literally care about and prioritize makes it impossible at scale. Families can be communist, even a small group of 10-50 people (more or less a cult or small tribe), massive populations can not. They simply are not going to work for the benefit of others without receiving something in exchange, unless you use a gun to their head, which is why all communist regimes start out authoritarian, but holding a gun to someone's head for 10-50 years won't change 200k years of evolutionary programming. Hence why Marx is good at pointing out capitalism's flaws, but he's naive and even more fundamentally flawed when it comes to prescribing a solution that does way more harm in the end.

Truth is most successful societies adopt a hybrid solution, socialism at the community or local level where everyone works for a shared purpose and contributes to the local community, whether that be through a church, small local government, etc. with capitalism that allows trade and mutually beneficial deals to happen with those outside of that community.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#127
post #86
post #78

All I see in this story are a bunch of things that were under discussion at some point, but never happened. But then, “Meta considered doing business in China, evaluated and negotiated with the Chinese government what would be required to do so, and then did not proceed” isn’t a story that is going to sell a lot of books or get her a lot of attention. Another tell that this is a stunt for attention and not a genuine…

> But then, “Meta considered doing business in China, evaluated and negotiated with the Chinese government what would be required to do so, and then did not proceed” isn’t a story that is going to sell a lot of books or get her a lot of attention It could be as simple as Meta did not want to give the Chinese government partial ownership and their IP.

I remember when this happened, it was in the news then, except the conversation was everyone in SV was doing it, including Google. They decided not to. We don't convict for thinking about robbing a bank, you actually have to attempt it and nothing being discussed was explicitly illegal, merely unethical by some arguments, but then again, NSA has several listening posts at AT&T hubs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A), and Apple is building backdoors for iCloud in the UK, its the cost of doing business in western countries, that ethically its simply complying with local laws at that point, just degrees of magnitude.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#128
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read her book Careless People [1] where she shared many details. A crucial aspect of the China story is that FB/Meta conveyed to the Chinese officials that they were ready to do anything they asked for in the hope that they will be allowed in China. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Careless-People-Cautionary-Power-Idea...

IS there a TLDR for why it didn't happen. Reporting at the time said internal dissent (woke/liberal internal culture + worker power) at the time killed the project like it did similar initiative at Google (Project DragonFly).

I think the book mentions that it did not happen because Xi abruptly shut it all down.

Re: Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

#130
post #73

A whistleblower is not required to determine that Meta, and all adtech companies, have been severely damaging not just to the US, but to all governments and societies where these platforms are used. They don't need to collude with any adversarial government for this to be true. The same tools built to manipulate people into buying things, are used to manipulate them into thinking and acting in ways that could be bene…

On the other hand these tools do allow individuals to connect and share. I see it like politics ( at least the way it's managed in the UK ) - democracy means everyone get's to vote, leaflet door to door, politically organise etc. However there are ( in the non-online space ) strict regulations about money not being able to buy a larger voice - political spending is(was) strictly limited. You can't use broadcast media…

> On the other hand these tools do allow individuals to connect and share.

Ok, Mark. That's enough.

Any coder can build a tool that allows individuals to connect and share. It's not a unique feature of Meta tools.

The unique property of Meta is that they have a hegemony. Which is ok.

They went further than that, though, and built the infrastructure for influencing the decisions of individuals. That's no longer ok.

Post reply on HN