141–150 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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?
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…
Mark Zuckerberg has been pushing for regulation for years. He wants this for two reasons: 1. Abdicating responsibility so that when the public or politicians complain about Facebook hosting or not hosting some content he can say it's not his problem, he follows the law. 2. The second is for regulatory capture. Once a social network gets a stigma of being uncool, people move on to the next thing. His status and net wo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If bakers must bake cakes, this is only fair. SCOTUS decided in favor of the bakers in that case, even if SCOTUS left the underlying question undecided (in either direction). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
SCOTUS didn't comment on the question, remanded the case back. When another person brought a similar case to the CO board, they found against the baker: https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/18/us/jack-phillips-colorado-bak... You should pay attention to what's going on before commenting on out of date news. Also, a similar case in washington of an old lady florist forced to provide flowers for an event she doesn't believe in.…
No, it is not.
Being a Nazi is a choice. Being gay is not. (Also, legally, being a Nazi is not a protected class.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SCOTUS didn't comment on the question, remanded the case back. When another person brought a similar case to the CO board, they found against the baker: https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/18/us/jack-phillips-colorado-bak... You should pay attention to what's going on before commenting on out of date news. Also, a similar case in washington of an old lady florist forced to provide flowers for an event she doesn't believe in.…
> This is like asking a jewish deli to cater the nazis. No, it is not. Being a Nazi is a choice. Being gay is not. (Also, legally, being a Nazi is not a protected class.)
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp...
And having a gay wedding is indeed a choice, and Jack Phillips shouldn't be forced to participate if he believes that his belief in his god makes it so that participating is akin to taking part in evil.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So my suggested points of investigation would be: How many whilst blowers have tried to take down facebook? How many of those have been articulate etc i.e. have the skills this woman has? What are the examples of inarticulate, poorly spoken whilstblowers who have taken down organisations in the information age? Not sure who the burden of proof is on here tbh. Proof takes work.
I've been trying to couch my comments around the fact that I am only talking about my gut-feelings. I don't have the means to deliver on the burden of proof because I completely lack the resources to investigate. Heck, even if my suspicions are actually correct, how in the world would I be able to uncover that? When something feels fishy, what else can you do? I just have suspicions because everything just seems too…
And had she been, that'd just be used as proof she was a plant too, because "a professional wouldn't sound like that."
I'm sure what she's saying is only part of the evil that Facebook represents, but there's something fishy about the whole setup. Why is she getting full media coverage and support, when previous whistleblowers were roundly ignored? She's a very wealthy person (1B estimated), so perhaps she's fairly well insulated from any blowback? But again, why is now the time to pile on Facebook, and why this person? [edit] Hint:…
I'm paraphrasing a similar comment I made on a different thread, but this whole situation seems fishy to me... Out of the blue some larger-than-life person (with impeccable credentials, no less) comes out of the woodwork and is lauded with attention while the big news outlets make this massive push against Facebook, all while congress is holding hearings about regulating social media. Then a massive outage happens at…