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

Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 320 posts

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#211

Post by topgrain2 »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #160
mindslight wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how much this applies to cheating at Catan. Regardless of social standing, few people are going to stop you from cheating at Catan because it helps everyone's goal - to be done with the game of Catan. Although perhaps repeatedly making people play Catan is itself that social power move.

> everyone's goal - to be done with the game of Catan Is it possible you're confusing Catan with Monopoly or Pictionary or any party game ever?

Nah, Catan's among those. It's very common for an initial set-up to leave 1-2 players with no realistic path to victory by turn 2 or so, even if they've made the best choices available to them. Once you learn to spot it, the game kinda sucks. It's not fun to play a game as one of those players, and it's not fun to play a game where some of the other people at the table are just filling space less than 25% of the way through the game. It's not as bad as some others for early player elimination (as world-domination-mode Risk is infamous for) but it also doesn't officially eliminate them, which is arguably even worse.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#213

Post by Biganon »

hyhatqtv wrote: post #199
hack1312 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “lizard people”/“reptilian overlords” conspiracy theory is rooted in antisemitism. It was invented by David Icke, a holocaust denier and endorser of the antisemitic hoax “The Protocols of the Elder Zion”, and plays off the medieval blood libel myths of a shadowy, non-human elite secretly subverting society to manipulate humanity, which “Protocols” built on and is what the conspiracy theory is based on. Zuck is a…

I think the lizard thing was mostly about mocking his lack of human emotions and apparent awkwardness (due to choice or personality). Calling someone a “humongous piece of shit” is a rather plain and boring insult unlike challenging his humanity and lizard like behaviour.

But saying he's a reptile is way too cool and badass. Lord Voldemort can be compared to a reptile.

Zuck is a tiny, pathetic piece of shit who throws tantrums when he loses at board games. He's not an evil genius mastermind, he's a metastasis.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#214

Post by nailer »

jxkrbtjtoo wrote: post #198
nailer wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hrm. Labour was vastly unpopular. The biggest power move the LibDems could do was install preferential voting (which would harm the two party system by allowing eg 1 minor party 2 major party 3 other major party ...preference votes), and the British public (stupidly, but that is their decision) rejected it. He couldn't eg freeze tuition fees because the LibDems were a junior partner in the coalition. The vote on pref…

But that’s not the reason he got elected. He got elected because he promised to end student loans. If someone says to you, “I’m going to take your money and bet it all on black on the roulette table.” and then comes back and says “sorry I lot it all because I bet it all on 22,” you’d be pissed! Now imagine they come back and say “not only have I lost it all but I borrowed an additional 3x in your name and also lost t…

If the LibDems won the election, he would have reduced tuition fees.

The LibDems, however, did not win the election.

If preferential voting happened, the LibDems and every other minor party could have had *vast ongoing influence over student loans and every other matter for generations to come*.

> AV was an absolute non issue to most voters who elected them.

Yes.

"Democracy basically means: Government by the people, of the people, for the people.... but the people are retarded."

- Osho

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#215

Post by rnagulapalle »

dofm wrote: post #53

It's not increasingly bizarre, really, if you just allow for the possibility of one thing: There's something else worse that they know could be in such a book, but isn't yet, and it is so bad that it is worth doing this. Perhaps they know that Wynn-Williams could have put it in the book and didn't. Perhaps they know that someone else — someone else British, say? — could write such things in a book and so far hasn't.…

[dead]

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#216

Post by notahacker »

Biologist123 wrote: post #203
notahacker wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the flip side is that Nick Clegg is probably not a great choice of person to threaten. He's already had the utterly miserable experience of going from unusually popular politician to person personally blamed for reneging on commitments in the coalition government (a route he chose for himself), he's not American and doesn't live there any more or particularly want to go back, and is politically connected enou…

Eh? The more standard view is that Clegg put in place efforts to ward off regulation as long as possible…he’s as popular as Jimmy Savile in the UK.

Well yeah, that's where Zuck trying to stop his book being published makes it look a bit less like irrelevant self serving nonsense...

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#217

Post by cheesecakegood »

teravor wrote: post #178

if you fancy a potential career as a whitleblower, you should consider writing what you know when you know it and secretly publishing commitment hashes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commitment_scheme ). it's much more credible and unassailable when the charge that the claims were made long after the fact for specific purposes is impossible. keep the relevant info in a dedicated password manager vault. a way to secr…

Has anyone created a tool for easily doing this? Imagine if all the Virginia Guiffres of the world created crypto-provable diaries they could later reveal.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#218

Post by zeroonetwothree »

alok-g wrote: post #102

>> ... conditions of employment required her to sign a contract that bound her to silence (nondisclosure), forbade her from speaking ill of the company (nondisparagement), and denied her access to the legal system in all her dealings with Meta (binding arbitration). Aren't the clauses on non-disclosure, arbitration, etc., common in non-Meta employment contracts as well?

I believe the nondisparagement clause was signed as part of a termination agreement? So that part seems inaccurate at least.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#219

Post by zeroonetwothree »

ben_w wrote: post #158
alok-g wrote: post #102

>> ... conditions of employment required her to sign a contract that bound her to silence (nondisclosure), forbade her from speaking ill of the company (nondisparagement), and denied her access to the legal system in all her dealings with Meta (binding arbitration). Aren't the clauses on non-disclosure, arbitration, etc., common in non-Meta employment contracts as well?

> Aren't the clauses on non-disclosure, arbitration, etc., common in non-Meta employment contracts as well? They are. Personally, I think the law should require that nondisclosure agreements should be strictly time-bound[0], ban all non-disparagement agreements[1], and replace binding arbitration with non-binding arbitration or mediation[2] that can still be escalated to a court if it breaks down. [0] by how much I a…

If non disparagement agreements weren’t allowed wouldn’t employers have less reason to make severance payments? We would expect average severance payment amounts to decrease under this scenario. So it’s not clear that this is the ideal outcome to employees, who might prefer more $.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#220

Post by timoth3y »

A good article about a genuinely great and important book. One quibble.

> Lukashenka knew that arresting children for eating ice cream would make him a laughingstock abroad. Zuckerberg knows that threatening Wynn-Williams for standing in wooden silence on a stage makes him look like history's most guillotineable billionaire.

I don't think they think that. People this powerful who choose to surround themselves with fawning sycophants are undoubtably being told daily that the whole world is understanding and routing for them in their "perfectly reasonable response to these vicious attacks."

Post reply on HN