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

Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 734 posts

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#401

Post by billiam »

jimkleiber wrote: post #183
woeirua wrote: post #77

I think a lot of people are choosing to ignore that a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values. For example, Standard Oil did not break any laws in its ruthless consolidation of the nascent oil industry. In fact, it exploited the law to allow i…

I really appreciate this point. I often see it as written rules (laws) and unwritten rules (ethics). If something breaks the unwritten rules we have about how people are supposed to interact with each other, then we often codify that rule into law. Many people will say "I didn't break the law" but where many people would say that person did break an unwritten law. > There should be no question, that what FB is doing…

AFAIK SEC laws and regulations about misrepresentation are only sporadically enforced to encourage compliance by example. Look at what Musk and his companies have gotten away with. Of course, I am all for these disclosures, which of course FB will pay their way out of without admitting wrongdoing. Because corporations manage our government, not the other way around.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#402

Post by Y_Y »

_tom_ wrote: post #338
jimkleiber wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really appreciate this point. I often see it as written rules (laws) and unwritten rules (ethics). If something breaks the unwritten rules we have about how people are supposed to interact with each other, then we often codify that rule into law. Many people will say "I didn't break the law" but where many people would say that person did break an unwritten law. > There should be no question, that what FB is doing…

Then there is the case of things are illegal, but are not enforced. Leading to the question of what is the law? What is written, or how it is enforced? How many of you went above the speed limit today? I suspect that much of what goes on in the stock market is similar.

At least speeding is democratised. Any asshole can go too fast. Insider trading is tough and you've got to be an insider (or at least know one).

I wonder which causes more net deaths.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#403

Post by sentinel »

colinmhayes wrote: post #384
sentinel wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The mainstream news pushed numerous stories over the past years without those rudimentary truthiness checks. 2. I disagree with many points in that paragraph: - echo chambers: when was the last time you heard a nuanced "from the other aisle" opinion from a NYT reader; an opinion that wasn't covered in the NYT. Same echo chamber, just a different format. - news companies are small and irrelevant: Seems like this na…

I read the times almost everyday and have plenty of conservative opinions. The Times has multiple conservative columnists and consistently publishes conservative op-eds.

You're in the minority.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#404

Post by kaibee »

threeseed wrote: post #286
asdff wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be some laws about using addictive patterns imo. I'm sure that's fine and profitable and coca cola would continue to like putting cocaine into their drinks to make their customers want it all the more, but we have laws preventing that behavior in the meatspace and therefore we can have laws preventing this sort of evil behavior with technology companies too. Tie it into website accessibility laws that ar…

> There should be some laws about using addictive patterns Of course there should be. But then you would also need to ban casinos, sports gambling, gaming, porn, cigarettes, alcohol and the myriad of other things that are addictive in nature.

Notably, all of those things are in fact, banned for people under the age of 18 or 21.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#405

Post by bregma »

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #365
chacham15 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I often see it as written rules (laws) and unwritten rules (ethics). I think this is a very dangerous line to walk. A common phrase in law is "the law often allows what honor forbids" and that is because there is a difference between the law and ethics and IMO that is a good thing. Is it ethical to eat all the cookies in the cookie jar and leave none for anyone else? No. Should it be illegal? No.

We've slowly seen an alternate interpretation promulgated by many: anything that is not illegal is ethical. The endpoint is practically the same (anything legal is ethical and vice versa) but it arguably makes for a worse society.

We've also seen, sometimes in high places, the third way of "it's illegal and unethical but I can get away with it."

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#406

Post by piggybox »

thinkling wrote: post #293
piggybox wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of Gmail is open?

I think GP is referring to the fact that email overall is a system that is based on public standards and open to new entrants. You can start Hmail.com if you want, and plug into the existing email eco-system as a new competitor very easily. The social media ecosystems aren't like that. You can't be a chat provider and plug into FB Messenger; you can't plug into Twitter, etc. There is an open social media eco-system c…

Ah, I got it. Thanks!

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#407

Post by NineStarPoint »

_hyn3 wrote: post #337
woeirua wrote: post #77

I think a lot of people are choosing to ignore that a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values. For example, Standard Oil did not break any laws in its ruthless consolidation of the nascent oil industry. In fact, it exploited the law to allow i…

> a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values. What you are saying is literally the opposite of hundreds of years of the rule of law. If FB did break the law as written, then prosecute them for that in a fair trial by a jury of their peers, but…

The point they’re making is you don’t prosecute Facebook for something that we think is unjust but is not yet illegal. You make it illegal, and then after that point if anyone continues with the now illegal course of action then you prosecute them. Prosecuting someone for something that wasn’t illegal when they did it would of course be wrong.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#408

Post by AzzieElbab »

robbrown451 wrote: post #299
AzzieElbab wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

umm if this hearing results in some kind of monetary settlement she will be entitled to some of it

I can't see how a monetary settlement would be the result of this.

why not? this hearing is not about monopolization, and fb cannot be singled out when it comes to regulations either

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#409

Post by nuerow »

docmars wrote: post #394
nuerow wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Walmart is (...) Whataboutism advances no discussion. Either Facebook's problems are discussed based on Facebook's circumstances and decisions and consequences, or we're better off not posting any message at all.

Comparisons, analogies, and metaphors are useful tools to increase understanding and draw parallels to ideas that are challenging to navigate and naturally, lead to a variety of thoughtful outcomes or interpretations. Crying "whataboutism" is as fruitless as you've described above. It is often used to steer a conversation towards a single direction of bias when those comparisons lead to inconvenient conclusions/possi…

> Comparisons, analogies, and metaphors are useful tools (...)

Whataboutism is neither. It's a logical fallacy employed to avoid discussing the problem or address issues by trying to distract and deflect the attention to irrelevant and completely unrelated subjects.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#410

Post by FFRefresh »

asdff wrote: post #115
hunterb123 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify, can you specify exactly what law you would like made? What do you want to be done exactly ? I would rather take the stance of feed algorithms and moderation logs be PUBLICLY available. Transparency instead of censorship.

Treat addictive social media companies like addictive cigarette companies. Lets see some huge warning labels about how mentally harmful it is to continue scrolling on facebook right on the first result where its unavoidable to see. Lets tax the hell out of social media companies to generate local revenue just like sin taxes. It won't be a huge change but it will be a great starting point and will come with revenue th…

Honestly asking:

What is the specific harm involved here that is deserving to be taxed?

How would we measure this harm in order to know how much to tax a given company?

Should other causes of this harm be taxed/penalized as well? If not, why?

For instance, if the harm in question is some people feel varying degrees of worse after using a given product, is there any limit we as a society should set on penalizing the cause of the harm?

Should people or entities who say things that make people feel worse be fined/prosecuted by the law? If I feel worse (let's call this 'trauma' or 'anxiety' or 'depression' or 'literally shaking' or 'panic attack') after reading a book or reading a news site, should I have standing to sue the creators and medium which presents said content?

Post reply on HN