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

281–290 of 320 posts

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#281

Post by glaslong »

akudha wrote: post #37

My guess would be - there is way more primitive explanation than setting an example etc (which is also a good reason, from their point of view). It is just plain ego and pettiness - we see it everywhere, even from a manager who has 3 people reporting to him. Why else would Zuck cheat on a board game , of all things? That too in private? It might just be as primitive as "I have more money than God, therefore I am bett…

Whether or not the emperor is aware of his New Clothes, the effect on his courtiers is the same

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#282

Post by zhoBEENG »

kmeisthax wrote: post #55
smt88 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FDR is a very interesting case study. He had the country in the palm of his hand and could have cemented his (or his party’s) power permanently, but instead he left the republic intact.

FDR actually kinda did do that. He broke the Washington precedent and ran for President four times, he scared the Supreme Court shitless to the point where they signed off on blatantly unconstitutional land grabs against Japanese emigrants, and the Democratic Party was able to ride high on the fumes of the Progressive movement for decades afterward. We don't think of him as a dictator, because a lot of what he did wa…

Thank you for this; you are completely correct but this is not the narrative on the streets. He was a tyrant (in the original sense) and dictator who believed in absolute power of the executive, which paved the way for Trump. His federalization program wiped out the America that existed before. Like Trump, he ruled via mob passion. He was America’s Marius.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#283

Post by leonidasrup »

akudha wrote: post #37

My guess would be - there is way more primitive explanation than setting an example etc (which is also a good reason, from their point of view). It is just plain ego and pettiness - we see it everywhere, even from a manager who has 3 people reporting to him. Why else would Zuck cheat on a board game , of all things? That too in private? It might just be as primitive as "I have more money than God, therefore I am bett…

In general you don't become and stay a bilionare just by pure luck, you have to be very inteligent and ruthless, no moral qualms.

" Zuckerberg: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuckerberg: Just ask

Zuckerberg: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

Zuckerberg: People just submitted it.

Zuckerberg: I don't know why.

Zuckerberg: They "trust me"

Zuckerberg: Dumb fucks "

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#284

Post by arcbyte »

leonidasrup wrote: post #283
akudha wrote: post #37

My guess would be - there is way more primitive explanation than setting an example etc (which is also a good reason, from their point of view). It is just plain ego and pettiness - we see it everywhere, even from a manager who has 3 people reporting to him. Why else would Zuck cheat on a board game , of all things? That too in private? It might just be as primitive as "I have more money than God, therefore I am bett…

In general you don't become and stay a bilionare just by pure luck, you have to be very inteligent and ruthless, no moral qualms. " Zuckerberg: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuckerberg: Just ask Zuckerberg: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuckerberg: People just submitted it. Zuckerberg: I don't know why. Zuckerberg:…

Lol. I would have said exactly the same thing at 20 years old and be just as disgusted by it at 30. People grow up.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#285

Post by shakes_mcjunkie »

arcbyte wrote: post #284
leonidasrup wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general you don't become and stay a bilionare just by pure luck, you have to be very inteligent and ruthless, no moral qualms. " Zuckerberg: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuckerberg: Just ask Zuckerberg: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuckerberg: People just submitted it. Zuckerberg: I don't know why. Zuckerberg:…

Lol. I would have said exactly the same thing at 20 years old and be just as disgusted by it at 30. People grow up.

Yea but you're not a billionaire running a giant social manipulation tool.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#287

Post by lokar »

myroon5 wrote: post #251
hedora wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are both being actively dismantled.

Social Security and Medicare are ~26% and ~16.5% of the federal budget (excluding the 15% of the budget that's just financing previous years' budgets): https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

And?

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#288

Post by cauch »

arcbyte wrote: post #284
leonidasrup wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general you don't become and stay a bilionare just by pure luck, you have to be very inteligent and ruthless, no moral qualms. " Zuckerberg: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuckerberg: Just ask Zuckerberg: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuckerberg: People just submitted it. Zuckerberg: I don't know why. Zuckerberg:…

Lol. I would have said exactly the same thing at 20 years old and be just as disgusted by it at 30. People grow up.

People may grow up or may not grow up.

If at 20, you don't act like that, then there is no question (and it is possible. In my 20's I was briefly a webmaster for a small org, and I noticed I had access of private info, and unlike Zuckerberg and you, I reported it to get it fixed. It does not mean you are a bad person, but it does mean that you should not consider that everyone would act like you did and that your way of acting was "normal").

If at 20, you act like that, there is a probability that you will grow up, and an even bigger probability that you will not grow up. It does not mean you should never be forgiven, but you have to own what you have done as a dumb kid, not just pretend it does not count, and provide elements to demonstrate that indeed you have changed.

In the case of Zuckerberg, his current actions demonstrate clearly he did not grow up.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#289

Post by alex1138 »

menloshark wrote: post #260
alex1138 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh no, but he was "making a point". Or he was young. He was "right" that it's bad to give up your info (so Zuck hammered home the point by scraping email contacts and using it to populate People You May Know. for your own good) You didn't hear that out of Myspace or Friendster or anyone else that's trusted with information Minimum threshold should be "People should be less forgiving of just giving away credentials bu…

If you like him so much, you should go work for him. Then call us back

What? Sorry, how much more sarcasm should I have in one post? It's clear that I don't like what he did

And sometimes I outright wasn't being sarcastic. But my point was some people say "he was right for saying that". But you don't hear that from literally anyone else. Google doesn't say it. Banks don't say it. The minimum threshold as I said in my comment was "I'll defend personal info" even if you think people theoretically shouldn't give it a way. But Zuck for example has been known to password scrape

The whole comment was about me not liking him

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#290

Post by menloshark »

mlrtime wrote: post #274
menloshark wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're very very happy to spill beans and talk about the current environment on Blind which is a lot less hostile. This is funny, Blind is even more negative on the general company sentiment than this place. People are saying the current morale right now is the worst it's ever been.

Right, but you don't get downvoted to [deleted] when you speak against the hive mind. Some people are genuinely happy working at these places. I've worked in Big Tech and I know for sure the team you're on makes a big difference, regardless of the CEO.

> I've worked in Big Tech and I know for sure the team you're on makes a big difference, regardless of the CEO.

Yeah this is true, but also if the company wants to make everyone suffer, they absolutely can. When companies have a bad reputation, people should believe it

Post reply on HN