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

231–240 of 320 posts

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#231

Post by zeroonetwothree »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #104

It is the same reasoning as with the regular Decimation. It is all about disciplining their employees. And it works. We're not saying many ex or current Meta employees talking about their experiences here, even if I am sure that HN is pretty popular among this crowd. And of course this is not unique to Zuck/Meta. We don't hear much from people working for Musk either.

If you are a former employee you don’t have much to gain by commenting here. If you say anything that isn’t unequivocally negative you will get downvoted into oblivion.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#232

Post by danny_codes »

jfengel wrote: post #126
Uhhrrr wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before the court packing threat, they were limiting the federal government's power to regulate commerce within states. Which is a power it doesn't actually have.

They have whatever power the Supreme Court decides they have. The Supreme Court decided that was their job, and thus far everyone has accepted it. The Court interprets the Constitution, which is vague enough to mean whatever a bare majority wishes it to mean.

> and thus far everyone has accepted it

For now. SC is becoming more partisan, which causes SC's credibility to decline. I assume there's a point where SC loses too much credibility and the existing system of balancing power breaks down.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#233

Post by teravor »

cheesecakegood wrote: post #217
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.

i imagine if someone were to make it, it would need to import a private key and export transactions to be manually published as building a crypto wallet around the concept would be too much.

someone who can navigate that process can just use txt files and sha256sum and whatever poweruser wallet they are already using. this isn't a mass market appeal activity, someone serious about it will put in the time to learn if they were inclined to do this.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#234

Post by lovich »

SoftTalker wrote: post #84
999900000999 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some companies are more evil than others. Some will lie repeatedly to even avoid paying out a settlement. In America you have no rights, your lucky if you get paid on time. Even then the actual process to get your back owed wages usually isn't worth the effort. I worked for a clown once who waited 30 days to tell me he only pays every 60 days. A friend of mine wasted a full week training, and the employer decided the…

Actually not paying earned wages is one of the few things that has a lot of teeth around it. Federal rules typically award back pay and an equal amount as liquidated damages, plus attorney's fees and court costs, and states may add penalties of their own.

Wage theft is one of the largest classes of theft in the US if not the largest. The government may do some work against the most egregious instances of theft but they barely stop it.

This is 2012 data but it seems like the FBI is no longer reporting the stats when I went to their crime data tool[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wage_theft_versus_other_p...

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#235

Post by matheusmoreira »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #138
fwipsy wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article mentions: > But I think they've decided that this is a price worth paying, because: > a) They've done even worse things since Wynn-Williams parted ways with the company; and > b) They're laying off thousands of workers because their giant bet on AI has been a flop, leaving them with a massive cash crunch; and > c) By destroying Sarah Wynn-Williams, they can terrorize all those thousands of bitter ex-emplo…

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.

> people are not primed to understand yet

What does this even mean?

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#236

Post by matheusmoreira »

alexpotato wrote: post #192
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 remember during the Google anti-trust case that there was example after example of "people behaving badly". Most of these were tools in the anti-competitive bucket but it does make you wonder about the things that happen that were never committed to code nor written down.

Where can I read an exhaustive list of these examples?

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#237

Post by erpellan »

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]

Most British people don’t respond well to attempts to cow them. They refuse to be cowed! To allow oneself to be cowed would be cowardly. To do so would have one accused of cowardice, of being a coward.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#239

Post by cataphract »

neilv wrote: post #92
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.…

The article's theory is similar: > But I think they've decided that this is a price worth paying, because: [...] c) By destroying Sarah Wynn-Williams, they can terrorize all those thousands of bitter ex-employees into silence about the even graver sins the company has committed.

Surely if it was that bad someone would reveal it anonymously to the press.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#240

Post by paulryanrogers »

nerdsniper wrote: post #225
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.

> 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."

That ... doesn't seem like it would help journalists or whistleblowers who are trying to bring serious attention to problems.
Post reply on HN