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

301–310 of 320 posts

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#301

Post by menloshark »

alex1138 wrote: post #289
menloshark wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 theor…

look, he's bad, don't work for him, just burn this into your memory, it's not that complicated

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#302

Post by nullbio »

alex1138 wrote: post #289
menloshark wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 theor…

I thought it was pretty obvious that your post was sarcasm, fwiw. I think people just skimmed it.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#303

Post by AlexeyBelov »

menloshark wrote: post #257
dahart wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is just plain ago and pettiness […] Why else would Zuck cheat on a board game Recently I felt somewhat enlightened on this point, specifically in regards to Trump cheating at golf and some of his bald-faced lies, but I’d speculate it applies here too. Others pointed out to me that while it might look petty and ridiculous to normal people, it’s a social power move to get away with things, and serves the purpose o…

This is really common at his company btw, this shit trickles down from leadership. For example, a director wrote a post internally solely with AI, didn't review it at all, directly plagiarized a bunch of stuff that other people wrote, and left a bunch of typos like [[link]]. It was just a post about why we need to use more AI or some bullshit like that. I had a direct manager who did shit way worse than this on a reg…

Nobody calls them out? Not even jokingly?

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#304

Post by matheusmoreira »

microgpt wrote: post #264
matheusmoreira wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people are not primed to understand yet What does this even mean?

In 2015, if someone told you all the world leaders were in a pedophile sex cult, you'd call that person crazy. But now because of Jeffrey Epstein we know that's not just within the realm of possibility, but actually true — and it's within the realm of possibility they ate babies. If we get enough evidence they ate babies, it'll become within the realm of possibility they hunt minorities for sport. The overton window…

> you'd call that person crazy

I wouldn't. There's nothing I hate more than being dismissed as crazy. I try very hard not to do that to anyone else.

I really hate it when people dismiss things as "conspiracy theories", as if it was some nutjob idea. There are plenty of conspiracies to go around. People get organized and try to achieve their own goals. It's standard operating procedure.

I've always been open to such ideas. I'd ask for evidence before affirming such things myself, but I absolutely wouldn't dismiss the person as "crazy". I try very hard to evaluate arguments and form my own opinion on whatever matters I'm discussing.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#305

Post by menloshark »

AlexeyBelov wrote: post #303
menloshark wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really common at his company btw, this shit trickles down from leadership. For example, a director wrote a post internally solely with AI, didn't review it at all, directly plagiarized a bunch of stuff that other people wrote, and left a bunch of typos like [[link]]. It was just a post about why we need to use more AI or some bullshit like that. I had a direct manager who did shit way worse than this on a reg…

Nobody calls them out? Not even jokingly?

Oh no, they totally do, everyone makes fun of them.

It's bizarre because there's this culture of really brazen leadership, but everyone is constantly criticizing them and laugh emoji reacting to their posts. But I think it's quieted down a bit before half year perf cycle

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#306

Post by AlexeyBelov »

menloshark wrote: post #305
AlexeyBelov wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody calls them out? Not even jokingly?

Oh no, they totally do, everyone makes fun of them. It's bizarre because there's this culture of really brazen leadership, but everyone is constantly criticizing them and laugh emoji reacting to their posts. But I think it's quieted down a bit before half year perf cycle

I'm pleased to hear that.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#307

Post by game_the0ry »

Terr_ wrote: post #230
game_the0ry wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Politicians will never represent you, they will always represent their donors.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#308

Post by gerdesj »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #248
gerdesj wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Well, considering their usage was in fact both correct and perfectly common, and considering that you have set the tone yourself that insulting people is ok by opening with doing it yourself, you surely cannot possibly be anything but fine with it being open season on pointing out how freaking ignorant that was eh?

Stirring an alphabet soup is not a form of argument.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#309

Post by gerdesj »

nkrisc wrote: post #242
gerdesj wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cow See the second definition. It’s not a common usage these days, but it’s absolutely valid, though probably unknown to most ESL folks.

"informal, disparaging + offensive : an unpleasant, annoying, or vacuous woman cowy ˈkau̇-ē adjective"

That seems rather parochial (and misogynistic). Have you ever heard or said "cowy" yourself?

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#310

Post by gerdesj »

erpellan wrote: post #237
gerdesj wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

You are playing with language badly. The three letters c-o-w sometimes end up close to each other in English but they don't mean a literal cow (moo)!

You might examine, say: coworker. A word I never use (because I'm a Brit) but it looks to me like cow-orker.

Post reply on HN