Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

thetimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 615 posts

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#381

Post by tim333 »

prepend wrote: post #317
surprisetalk wrote: post #10

This book was SO GOOD. It's bleak. I always imagined that rich/powerful people only created suffering if that suffering was required for certain goals. It's easier for me to bear injustice when it's a zero-sum game. But the story of Facebook is not that. Facebook didn't make ethical sacrifices for profit -- its executives just didn't care to understand the consequences of their actions. I wish those folks could feel…

I think the author was complicit and only complained once FB stopped paying her. It was weird how the author claimed not to know how facebook targeted ads worked until 2016/2017 after she had made millions.

Though if she was complicit she's probably in a good position to expose it now things have changed.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#382

Post by saltyoldman »

mortoc wrote: post #322
prepend wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the author was complicit and only complained once FB stopped paying her. It was weird how the author claimed not to know how facebook targeted ads worked until 2016/2017 after she had made millions.

Literally anyone with the access to these people would be someone making bank. Do you think Cheryl Sandberg would bother to talk to a poor person? That's kinda the nature of whistle-blowing. You're complicit, you have inside knowledge and THEN you choose to do the right thing. Snowden worked for the NSA before he exposed their lies about spying on US citizens, you think he did literally no work towards that end befor…

It's kind of the reason C-execs (and up) stay, the company keeps paying them more and more to hold the secrets.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#383

Post by cindyllm »

saltyoldman wrote: post #382
mortoc wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally anyone with the access to these people would be someone making bank. Do you think Cheryl Sandberg would bother to talk to a poor person? That's kinda the nature of whistle-blowing. You're complicit, you have inside knowledge and THEN you choose to do the right thing. Snowden worked for the NSA before he exposed their lies about spying on US citizens, you think he did literally no work towards that end befor…

It's kind of the reason C-execs (and up) stay, the company keeps paying them more and more to hold the secrets.

[dead]

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#384

Post by BloondAndDoom »

gfody wrote: post #379
BloondAndDoom wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you work in or closely follow the tech world? I read this book thinking that it'll be some expose but honestly it was underwhelming in a sense, it's almost better than I thought. Everything in the book either was obvious for anyone who worked in the industry, or better than I thought it'd be. There were some weird personal things about Zuckerberg, but even those were expected or given. It was an OK read, however a…

normalizing toxic as standard industry practice is sort of like condoning it, imo

It's like saying "Today's big companies follow lots of dark patterns such as forcing customers to call them to close their accounts, which became a standard practice in banks, SaaS and other businesses." It's an observation, nothing more than that.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#386

Post by ccppurcell »

prepend wrote: post #317
surprisetalk wrote: post #10

This book was SO GOOD. It's bleak. I always imagined that rich/powerful people only created suffering if that suffering was required for certain goals. It's easier for me to bear injustice when it's a zero-sum game. But the story of Facebook is not that. Facebook didn't make ethical sacrifices for profit -- its executives just didn't care to understand the consequences of their actions. I wish those folks could feel…

I think the author was complicit and only complained once FB stopped paying her. It was weird how the author claimed not to know how facebook targeted ads worked until 2016/2017 after she had made millions.

So what? If we need unscrupulous people to tell us what other unscrupulous people do, so what?

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#387

Post by miltonlost »

bostik wrote: post #363
gortok wrote: post #23

Having listened to the book on Audible, I'm both shocked at the behavior of the executive team, and not surprised all at the same time. What bothers me about all of this is what it says about us. It says we're willing to give rich and powerful people a pass just because they make overtures towards something we care about. We wouldn't give our children a pass like this, nor would we teach our children to act this way,…

> Cheryl Sandberg inviting the author of the book to sleep in her bed next to her on the company jet, and the petulent and vindictive behavior when the author said 'no'. Considering the timing... does that mean MeToo doesn't apply if the predator is also a woman? Sexual advances from a position of power are simply not okay. (Weirdly as a society we appear to have accepted that an older woman predating younger men is…

Age gaps in relationships is not inherently negative. Being a cougar is not a bad thing. The issue here was that Sandberg was the author's manager. Age isn't an issue when all parties are adults.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#388

Post by boca_honey »

dboreham wrote: post #283
chrisrogers wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The billionaire class can do those things, but they don't have to. Same with non-celebrity Royalty.

There are some reasons they may have to: risk of being kidnapped, risk of random people bothering them for money, risk of random crazy people attacking them, illogicality of waiting hours in a TSA line for no other reason than "that's what poor people do".

Exactly. If I was one of those people, no one but my 30-50 most trusted friends and family members would be allowed 100 yards near me.

I would be afraid for my safety 24/7, for my children's... For my private life (I would never talk about my personal opinions to anyone outside of my immediate family). Etc.

Think Taylor Swift in Walmart. She could probably get trampled over and die (no joke). Zuckerberg or Gates in a bar or a county fair? Probably beaten to death or shot.

It's easy for us to imagine they live isolated from regular people because they think they're better than us (although they probably think that)... But the reality is that regular people are dangerous for this kind of people.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#389

Post by KomoD »

philprx wrote: post #78
macleginn wrote: post #2

https://archive.is/DmiOw

Recaptcha is taking ages

Yeah, that's intentional, it's not going to let you pass because the owner has beef with Cloudflare.

Are you using Cloudflare's DNS? That's usually the cause.

Post reply on HN