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

221–230 of 320 posts

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#221

Post by fmajid »

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.…

I am assuming you are referring to Nick Clegg. The British are very easy to cow and bankrupt thanks to egregious libel laws that put the burden of proof on the defendant. They also have super injunctions allowing wrongdoers like Trafigura to silence whistleblowers and journalists.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#222

Post by fmajid »

abirch wrote: post #196
GauntletWizard wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have done worse things, since the beginning, that they know about but people are not primed to understand yet. Each whistleblower brings us closer to full understanding, bit by bit, showing that even the lower ranks see and are party to things that are unthinkable to the older generation and that the younger are only now waking up to being not okay.

Careless People is such as great book. I'm still shocked that Zuck hasn't bought the rights to it and buried it that way.

Or bought the publisher.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#223

Post by marksbrown »

KaiserPro wrote: post #190
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always was. Clegg is notorious for getting the Tories into power in 2010 by promising some basic decency, then betraying those promises to prop up the regime responsible for austerity. He's always been an operator. Moving to Meta after he left politics was an "Oh, of course."

> then betraying those promises to prop up the regime I mean thats one way to look at it. Another way was, the lib dems traded everything for the chance to change the voting from FPP to proportional representation, and failed. Yes, he went back on tuition fees, and worse still wasn't able to make it a graduate tax (hence the stupid loan system) but the gamble was that, and it was clear at the time. unlucky for the li…

Alternative Vote is not Proportional Representation. And to be very clear, liberal democrat MPs, including Nick Clegg, were photographed with signed papers saying that if they were ever in government they would abolish tuition fees. A cynical ploy to win university constituencies.

That said, the country was reeling from the 2008 banking crisis, that even with a competent PM in Brown (despite his 'ignorant woman') comment was leading a Labour government into its 14th year. Even then David Cameron only won a minority government. If the lib dems hadn't backed the Tories into office, very likely we would have seen a second general election within short order.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#224

Post by lovich »

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…

> if you fancy a potential career as a whitleblower,…

Most people don’t fancy a career as a whistleblower. They get their morals pushed further and further until they finally decide it is too much and they take the risk to their life and prosperity.

> it's much more credible and unassailable when the charge that the claims were made long after the fact for specific purposes is impossible.

If someone actually joined an org with plans to be a whistleblower I assume people complaining about whistleblowers trustworthiness would then be complaining that it was all lies because they always planned on leaking information.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#225

Post by nerdsniper »

fmajid wrote: post #221
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.…

I am assuming you are referring to Nick Clegg. The British are very easy to cow and bankrupt thanks to egregious libel laws that put the burden of proof on the defendant. They also have super injunctions allowing wrongdoers like Trafigura to silence whistleblowers and journalists.

> egregious libel laws

Apparently you can get off scot-free in Britain even if you say/write things that are generally considered defamation per se as long as you claim that you utilized the "JDART" strategy:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50695593

JDART: "Joke that was badly received, therefore Deleted, with an Apology and then Responsive Tweets to move on from the matter."

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#226

Post by gerdesj »

fmajid wrote: post #221
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.…

I am assuming you are referring to Nick Clegg. The British are very easy to cow and bankrupt thanks to egregious libel laws that put the burden of proof on the defendant. They also have super injunctions allowing wrongdoers like Trafigura to silence whistleblowers and journalists.

[flagged]

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#227

Post by lovich »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #219
ben_w wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 $.

I have been required to sign non disparagement agreements to gain employment and given zero severance for all but one job in my career.

Non disclosures, non disparagements, and non solicits, are thrown out like candy by companies while severance payouts are rare outside of the largest orgs. Non compete agreements were also so prevalent that that we had subway sandwich makers being bound by them leading to them being bound and as I just learned when trying to find a source for that I discovered that ban has been abandoned by the current admin[1]

[1] https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/nx-s1-5528937/ftc-noncompete-...

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#228

Post by danny_codes »

bayarearefugee wrote: post #205
codexb wrote: post #125

"Whistleblowing" requires something illegal to have occurred. It doesn't appear any of the disclosures being made about Facebook allege anything illegal. They are just disparaging insider information. Anyone who has worked in tech for any amount of time has signed an NDA. They are not nefarious.

> Anyone who has worked in tech for any amount of time has signed an NDA. They are not nefarious. Non-Disclosure agreements to protect a company's legitimate business and trade secrets aren't nefarious. But I'd argue that Non-Disparagement agreements or non-disparagement clauses that block disclosure of inappropriate personal behavior is, in fact, nefarious.

I'm surprised they're legal. In fact, it looks like there are strict limits on them in CA

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#229

Post by mjrbrennan »

gerdesj wrote: post #226
fmajid wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am assuming you are referring to Nick Clegg. The British are very easy to cow and bankrupt thanks to egregious libel laws that put the burden of proof on the defendant. They also have super injunctions allowing wrongdoers like Trafigura to silence whistleblowers and journalists.

[flagged]

It’s definitely usable as a verb, see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cow

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#230

Post by Terr_ »

game_the0ry wrote: post #142
Terr_ wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is only one way to Zuckerberg et al. would actually prefer that we all think that, so that we just stop there and don't proceed to more-effective politics. https://pluralistic.net/2026/05/21/purity-culture/

You may have given up. I didn't.

So then you agree that a boycott is actually not the "only one way" to react?

Your original comment makes it sound like you think that nothing else is possible, which would exclude things laws around privacy rights or liability for mishandling personal data.

Post reply on HN