Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 164 posts

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#151

Post by p49k »

_3u10 wrote: post #118
glitchc wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they are all ad hominem attacks. She shared ~18000 documents. Doesn't matter who the messenger is at this point, it's all about the veracity of the documents themselves. Did Facebook deny creating those documents? No. Did they refute statements from those documents? No. Hence statements about the whistleblower are not relevant.

She hasn't shared these documents with the public. All we have to go on is her summary of them, and the documents NBC News has selectively deemed relevant. NBC news has only shared 7000 pages, I'd assume this is probably 10% of the documents. We're essentially being asked to judge facebook when the prosecution is withholding 90% of the evidence. edit: It appears the shared documents were from a previous leak, I can't…

She shared them with the SEC, Congress and the WSJ. Ostensibly she doesn’t have the resources to redact tens of thousands of documents herself.

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#152

Post by tapatio »

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…

I recommend you study logical fallacies.

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#153

Post by listless »

mthoms wrote: post #128
xqcgrek2 wrote: post #72

The smear here is actually against Facebook. The whistleblower is clearly being boosted by Democratic operatives [1] and appeared in front of Congress the day after 60 minutes. [1] Jen Psaki's former employer https://www.dailywire.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-leftis...

Wow. That was some hit piece. Nothing was spared — They even managed to "casually" reveal her sexuality. For some reason. Absolutely disgusting. I can't believe intelligent people read, let alone cite, this Enquirer-level garbage.

Ok yes. But lots of things are true here 1) that’s a hit piece and 2) Francis is all about Francis and 3) Facebook is an awful company.

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#155

Post by ceejayoz »

iammisc wrote: post #146
alasdair_ wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

Being a Nazi is 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.

No, Nazis aren't a protected class. The ACLU (correctly) argued that they've First Amendment rights just like everyone else; it has nothing to do with membership in a protected class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#157

Post by iammisc »

ceejayoz wrote: post #155
iammisc wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a Nazi is 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.

No, Nazis aren't a protected class. The ACLU (correctly) argued that they've First Amendment rights just like everyone else; it has nothing to do with membership in a protected class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States

Well yess... Being a human individual in this country entitles you to believe and speak how you want. Nazis are still humans, despite their behavior

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#158

Post by koboll »

Barrin92 wrote: post #91
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…

because they're not even attempting to refute anything she says, which the Verge article points out. If you're going to try to smear someone by attacking their lack of experience it would probably make sense to point out how that lack of experience manifests itself in errors in her judgement. Of course they cannot do that because she is literally citing their own words. Which is why this is just a thinly veiled, path…

>because they're not even attempting to refute anything she says

Yes. So they're right but bringing up irrelevancies. It's a diversionary tactic, no doubt. But it's not a "smear".

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#159

Post by ceejayoz »

iammisc wrote: post #157
ceejayoz wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Nazis aren't a protected class. The ACLU (correctly) argued that they've First Amendment rights just like everyone else; it has nothing to do with membership in a protected class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States

Well yess... Being a human individual in this country entitles you to believe and speak how you want. Nazis are still humans, despite their behavior

Yes, Nazis have Constitutional rights.

They are not a protected class, which means you're allowed to do things like not hire Nazis without running afoul of Federal discrimination law.

I can be fired for being a Nazi, or a redhead, or a comic book fan. I cannot be fired for my skin color, or my national origin, or my religion. That's how protected classes work.

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#160

Post by iammisc »

ceejayoz wrote: post #159
iammisc wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yess... Being a human individual in this country entitles you to believe and speak how you want. Nazis are still humans, despite their behavior

Yes, Nazis have Constitutional rights. They are not a protected class, which means you're allowed to do things like not hire Nazis without running afoul of Federal discrimination law. I can be fired for being a Nazi, or a redhead, or a comic book fan. I cannot be fired for my skin color, or my national origin, or my religion. That's how protected classes work.

Okay, sorry, you're bringing in firing, but I'm talking about baking cakes as an individual proprietor of a business. If the claim is 'being conservative is not a proteted class'... okay, but religion certainly is, and my religion is more conservative than mainstream conservatism, yet I've still been subjected to facebook censorship. So, can I claim Facebook must let me post content, just like Phillips must bake a cake, because of my protected class status, religion?

If not, why not? If so, why? If the answer is not 'Yes facebook must publish', how do you square this away that the answer is 'Yes you must bake'.?

Post reply on HN