Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#131

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 11:33 PM UTC

cratermoon wrote: post #92

koboll wrote: post #61

Okay, so Facebook has said she - worked there for less than two years and had no direct reports - never attended some sort of key meeting - did not work on the subject matter in question ...and therefore, she lacks context which undermines some of her claims. Which of those is a matter of character, or a "disgusting" attack? They might be wrong, or they might be right but bringing up irrelevancies, but the writer is…

The goal is to divert discussion from the issue and make the discussion about her personality. The "disgusting" part is not what Facebook says about her (their folks clearly don't have much to smear Haugen with if this is the worst), it's that they don't want to address the allegations directly. The "smear" such as it is, falls flat, but it's reprehensible for Facebook's people to want to make the discussion about he…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#132

Post by cratermoon » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 11:38 PM UTC

true_religion wrote: post #129

cratermoon wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal is to divert discussion from the issue and make the discussion about her personality. The "disgusting" part is not what Facebook says about her (their folks clearly don't have much to smear Haugen with if this is the worst), it's that they don't want to address the allegations directly. The "smear" such as it is, falls flat, but it's reprehensible for Facebook's people to want to make the discussion about he…

If she were in a visible position where she'd have learned this information, the people in PR could easily look up what projects she was on them come up with a targeted response disclosing only those facts. However, since she didn't work on anything relevant, they have to do research without any guidance. It's Day 1. They can't come out and say "we don't know what she's talking about or where she got her data, so we…

Which is why the correct response is along the lines of "we take these allegations very seriously but have no comment at this time". Coming out of the gate with a response that does nothing but attempt to cast aspersions on the individual immediately brings to mind what happened to people like climatologist Michael E. Mann

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#133

Post by iammisc » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 11:40 PM UTC

mbesto wrote: post #95

iammisc wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snowden advocated in favor of the government following their own law (not spying on people without judicially issued warrants). This 'whistleblower' is asking the government to violate their own law (the first amendment) by banning individual speech on these platforms. EDIT: Honestly, I could care less about facebook. Although I think Mark Zuckerberg should be in jail (look at the allegations that his company knowing…

> This 'whistleblower' is asking the government to violate their own law (the first amendment) by banning individual speech on these platforms. I could be mistaken, but I don't think she is specifically advocating for that? I believe she is saying specific things should be regulated...mainly the ability to configure timelines, greater control on use by teens, etc.

I don't wholesale disagree with everything she has to say. As I've stated multiple times on this thread, I believe Facebook should be liquidated and its executives, including Mark Zuckerberg jailed.

I am referring to these points of the testimony:

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/FC8A558E-824E...

> The result has been a system that amplifies division, extremism, and polarization — and undermining societies around the world. In some cases, this dangerous online talk has led to actual violence that harms and even kills people. In other cases, their profit optimizing machine is generating self-harm and self-hate — especially for vulnerable groups, like teenage girls. These problems have been confirmed repeatedly by Facebook’s own internal research.

While she is correct that facebook has allowed people to talk that's led to violence (some of it very justified... see the arab spring, etc), and that facebook contributes to division, I don't believe the government should be in the business of regulating the speech of individual users of these websites. Ultimately, that just means the government just gets to squash dissenting voices. Ending the 'dangerous online talk' may today mean stopping violent extremists, but may tomorrow become "Don't discuss anti-government policy messages because it may inspire some people to commite violence" which is a slippery slope.

For example, the whistleblower claims that some online talk amplifies extremism which 'undermines societies around the world'. Some societies deserve to be undermined. Few would batt an eye if Facebook were used by North Korean dissidents to organize around toppling that country's dictatorship.

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#134

Post by pixl97 » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 11:42 PM UTC

lukasb wrote: post #55

whatshisface wrote: post #10

Has anyone got the documents themselves, or only reporter's descriptions of the documents?

My guess is they're using the same strategy as the Snowden leaks - drop a new bombshell at regular intervals through the media, then eventually open source the whole thing. The idea is the maximize the impact of the leaks, not to hide anything (of course, you can disagree about whether it actually does maximize the impact.)

Not only does it maximize the impact of the leaks, now those defending themselves against the leaks must be very careful not to create a new set of lies that could be disproved by further leaks.

As a hypothetical

FB: we only did that once!

Leaker: in fact you did that many times (shows papers)

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#135

Post by dado3212 » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 11:47 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #76

I always liked Edward R. Murrow's response to Senator McCarthy's attempt to smear him: "Since he made no reference to any statements of fact that we made, we must conclude that he found no errors of fact." 1: https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/edwardrmurrowtomcc...

I think they're also saying that there's issues of fact?

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#136

Post by lostmsu » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 12:18 AM UTC

klelatti wrote: post #74

koboll wrote: post #61

Okay, so Facebook has said she - worked there for less than two years and had no direct reports - never attended some sort of key meeting - did not work on the subject matter in question ...and therefore, she lacks context which undermines some of her claims. Which of those is a matter of character, or a "disgusting" attack? They might be wrong, or they might be right but bringing up irrelevancies, but the writer is…

They are trying to undermine her credibility - to say she wasn't important, that she doesn't really understand - whether it's a smear is borderline but it seems a pretty poor response to me.

That's assuming this is their only "defense". Was it though?

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#137

Post by Smoosh » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 12:24 AM UTC

chalst wrote: post #28

whatshisface wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook PR: “Today a Senate Commerce subcommittee held a hearing with a former product manager at Facebook who worked for the company for less than two years, had no direct reports, never attended a decision-point meeting with C-level executives — and testified more than six times to not working on the subject matter in question.” This doesn't sound like character assassination, it's Facebook claiming that she was…

Character assassination is not done in one press release. It's done in a campaign of PRs and cossetting friendly journalists and newspapers. Perhaps it's premature to call it character assassination, but we've seen this play out quite a few times.

I believe that the term of art is "backgrounding".

As in the company provides "background" information such as seems to be the case here. Of course, this is really the company framing the conversation and deflecting the criticisms without addressing them.

I see the discussion here is largely fixated on whether this constitutes a "smear" or not. So, it seems to be working from Facebook's point of view as we are not discussing the actual allegations against them.

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#138

Post by ipaddr » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 12:38 AM UTC

bleachedsleet wrote: post #104

caminante wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you're going to try to smear someone by attacking their lack of experience Re-read the parent comment. How is the whistleblower getting smeared based on the assertions above? Are they not factual AND relevant? edit: I see comments below talking past this sub-thread. Let's get down to definitions. > Smear: damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander. At best, the article's premise that FB's cl…

If I tell you the sky is green the best way to refute that to your audience is to ignore me entirely as a person and instead tell people to go outside and look up: Show them some evidence and factually refute my claim. You don’t say “this man isn’t a sky expert, has never spoken to sky experts, and should therefore be dismissed!” The parent comment’s point would seem to be that this person is making a claim that shou…

If the person never saw a sky before or never worked on facebook sky but passed by a window and saw a green sky and freaked out I would mention it. Context matters.

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#139

Post by angelzen » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 12:57 AM UTC

fleddr wrote: post #82

Not seeing any "character assassination" in any of the quotes. None of Facebook's defense lines, low quality as they may be, seem overly personal. For the record, I fully side with the whistleblower's claims. It's just that this article is very emotional, and could have been so much more. This is a fascinating quote the author failed to address fully: "Facebook PR: “Despite all this, we agree on one thing; it’s time…

> We don't even know what Facebook is. A media company? A news organization? A shop? A dating site?

Facebook is an entity that controls the information flow reaching its users and shapes it in the interest of the highest bidder.

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#140

Post by scotuswroteus » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 2:06 AM UTC

koboll wrote: post #61

Okay, so Facebook has said she - worked there for less than two years and had no direct reports - never attended some sort of key meeting - did not work on the subject matter in question ...and therefore, she lacks context which undermines some of her claims. Which of those is a matter of character, or a "disgusting" attack? They might be wrong, or they might be right but bringing up irrelevancies, but the writer is…

OK, you're responding to the fact that Facebook is saying things that are not disgusting about the whistleblower, who revealed really important information that Facebook is doing reprehensible things that threaten the long term sustainability of the democratic political systems currently in place.

What about your focus on the word "disgusting" is worth resolving BEFORE we get to the threat to the long term sustainability of the democratic political systems currently in place?