Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#271

Post by bink » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 5:35 AM UTC

3np wrote: post #241

robbrown451 wrote: post #124

Whether or not what Facebook did was illegal and she technically qualifies as a "whistleblower", I salute her for what she has done and is doing by telling this story. People need to know about this, because it is harmful. This doesn't mean it should be illegal. But it is something people should consider if they go to work for Facebook (or other companies), and hopefully it will inspire people to do something about t…

From where do you get the notion that something illegal needs to take place for someone to qualify as "whistleblower"? First time I encounter this idea.

I think there's a legal definition of a whistleblower that would protect them from civil litigation. That usually involves criminal conduct on the part of the company.

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#272

Post by rocqua » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 5:39 AM UTC

coolso wrote: post #216

Remember when Facebook used to be pretty cool? I mean sure, it fell out of favor with younger people including myself, but overall it had generally favorable and positive views in the press and media - especially compared to today. Yeah, people knew it wasn't the greatest, but it wasn't the devil, either. But then, I guess it was about 5 years ago now, 2016-ish or thereabouts, it all seemed to change overnight, and s…

I think it coincided with the exodus of a lot of people from Facebook. People leaving because there parents were on there, better options existing, and maybe because of advertising reporting.

Maybe that drove their engagement machine to start. Or maybe this was the long term effect of their engagement machine.

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#273

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 5:41 AM UTC

sayonaraman wrote: post #127

have they defined what "hate speech" and "misinformation" mean these days? More often than not these terms are used by one party to silence & suppress opposing views of another. Thankfully Zuckerberg doesn't give a damn, one would be hard-pressed to find a better CEO for social media company who can stand up to all this whining.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#274

Post by Cookingboy » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 5:41 AM UTC

eigengrau5150 wrote: post #218

Facebook needs to be shut down. Dissolve the corporation, confiscate its assets under civil forfeiture laws, and put Zuckerberg and his enablers in jail.

Lol this isn't /r/news on Reddit. You don't get credit for shouting empty rally slogans like that.

For better or worse, in this country you don't get to confiscate assets, dissolve corporations or put people in jail just because you don't like them.

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#275

Post by fragmede » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 5:42 AM UTC

Thorrez wrote: post #212

55555 wrote: post #119

I'm glad she shared what she shared. Facebook is a cancer on society IMO. In many cases, although perhaps not this one, whistleblowers have had an extremely active and political Twitter account when hired, or are literally being hired _because_ of their wokeness. Do silicon valley companies not screen for intensity of political views during job interviews in order to prevent issues like this? They certainly don't see…

>Do silicon valley companies not screen for intensity of political views during job interviews in order to prevent issues like this? [...] It would seem like it would be better for business to just not let people join the organization if they're relatively likely to one day go on a moral crusade. That sounds likely to cause a lot of employee blowback, and negative news articles somewhat similar to this one. I can see…

In fact, there was just recently a thread about hiring (YC company filed for IPO) and the comments were filled with less aware interviewers arguing about a je ne sais quoi about candidates. This is WHY there's a rubric and the question is silly whiteboard algorithm questions. The alternative is shit like "so how pregnant are you" which is illegal, and judging candidates on "gut" and it turns out that hinders your company.

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#276

Post by poopypoopington » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 5:43 AM UTC

robbrown451 wrote: post #124

Whether or not what Facebook did was illegal and she technically qualifies as a "whistleblower", I salute her for what she has done and is doing by telling this story. People need to know about this, because it is harmful. This doesn't mean it should be illegal. But it is something people should consider if they go to work for Facebook (or other companies), and hopefully it will inspire people to do something about t…

I don't think we should want good people to stop working for Facebook. That never made sense to me. Facebook isn't going anywhere, and as such it should be improved, and the only way that will happen is if good people keep going to work there and trying to make it better.

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#277

Post by robbrown451 » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 5:45 AM UTC

3np wrote: post #241

robbrown451 wrote: post #124

Whether or not what Facebook did was illegal and she technically qualifies as a "whistleblower", I salute her for what she has done and is doing by telling this story. People need to know about this, because it is harmful. This doesn't mean it should be illegal. But it is something people should consider if they go to work for Facebook (or other companies), and hopefully it will inspire people to do something about t…

From where do you get the notion that something illegal needs to take place for someone to qualify as "whistleblower"? First time I encounter this idea.

Honestly, I got it from the at-the-time topmost comment on this discussion, which said she's not a whistleblower because FB didn't do anything illegal. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28742045 (I also replied to that comment directly)

I did look it up though, and the dictionary seems to suggest it needs to be illegal or against rules or something, as opposed to simply being harmful.

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#278

Post by slowmovintarget » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 5:47 AM UTC

The real takeaway: Parents protect your children from social media. Talk to them. Give them rules to keep them safe. Say "No." Don't wait for Zuckerberg to do it. Don't wait for Congress to do it. Get yourself away from it, and get your children off it. Find some other way to share pictures with grandma and grandpa.

We need regulation, yes, but this is the same as people smoking themselves into an early grave, but on a societal level.

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#279

Post by runarberg » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 5:54 AM UTC

poopypoopington wrote: post #276

robbrown451 wrote: post #124

Whether or not what Facebook did was illegal and she technically qualifies as a "whistleblower", I salute her for what she has done and is doing by telling this story. People need to know about this, because it is harmful. This doesn't mean it should be illegal. But it is something people should consider if they go to work for Facebook (or other companies), and hopefully it will inspire people to do something about t…

I don't think we should want good people to stop working for Facebook. That never made sense to me. Facebook isn't going anywhere, and as such it should be improved, and the only way that will happen is if good people keep going to work there and trying to make it better.

I’m not really well versed in the history of consumerism, so I ask: Is there a common pattern to what happens with companies which produce harmful products for their customers? Facebook is by no means the first company to do something like this.

E.g. Which cigarette company went furthest in marketing to children, are they still in business? Did any car companies refuse to include seat belts after their safety records were prooven, did they loose good workers as a result of that stubbornness?

Re: Facebook whistleblower says she wants to fix company, not harm it

#280

Post by jsmith99 » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 5:56 AM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #158

scheme271 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To expand on the sibling comment, Facebook has two classes of shares. Class A shares have one vote and are the shares that are traded on stock exchanges. Class B shares get 10 votes each and are held by Zuckerberg and friends. Zuckerberg has enough Class B shares that he really can't be outvoted by other investors.

> Facebook has two classes of shares I had no idea companies could legally create vastly unequal schemes like that. How do people even find out about things like this? Is this information available somewhere? Impossible to make good investment decisions without this sort of knowledge.

The London Stock Exchange doesn't allow such dual class share structures for exactly this reason. That's partly why it has become so unpopular with tech companies.

They are considering changing the rule but many of London's brokers and institutional investors strongly oppose it.