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

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

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 627 posts

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

#611

Post by ethanbond »

kcplate wrote: post #610
ethanbond wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A world that’s governed by complex legal codes, procedures, and norms with a variety of loopholes and undefined states. One that’s not safeguarded by rah rah “we are most powerful country ever” therefore our bureaucracy is immune to bureaucratic failure! We simply don’t really know what would’ve happened if e.g. the ballots were destroyed. They would’ve had to get duplicate ballots from the states. Would all the stat…

The point is that this event is characterized as an insurrection and a threat to the the United States. It wasn’t. If you want to shift the conversation to election integrity, that’s fine…but that was actually the whole point of the demonstrations. You have one group that felt that they had legitimate concerns about the election’s integrity. The other side downplayed those concerns, does not want to improve election…

To clarify, when I refer to ballots being destroyed I’m referring to electoral college ballots being destroyed by rioters during the Jan 6 insurrection. It wasn’t a coincidence that they were called to DC on that particular day when a normally extremely boring and mundane procedure is carried out. It has no symbolic value, it has no cultural value, it has no value except ensuring the legal, procedural basis for transition of power. That’s why it was attacked.

Yes, if that succeeded, it would’ve harmed the US.

In any case, your suggestion that the democrats “actually want to erode [election integrity] further” reveals a lot.

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

#612

Post by Gunax »

conductr wrote: post #590
Gunax wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I don't see it. No one thought Facebook was evil until Trumpnwas elected. Funny how Facebook was hailed for being a paragon of access after Obama's win. Is anyone actually reading these leaked docs? No, they're just seeing the headline and assuming whatever pet issue they have is true. I don't see what's so evil about trying to be profitable. It's a corporation. They didn't start out trying to fix society of eve…

This seems purposely ignorant. The election part is just one thing that makes it bad. I didn’t even mention politics but I’ll bite, from what I believe I hold as a rather objective view. 1) I never heard any talks of Obama campaigns being “evil”. My knowledge is they were positive, spreading a message hope. It was more of the fact that at the time, FB was demographically skewed young and he did well with young voters…

Thanks for the response.

One difficulty of claiming a double standard is that often there isn't a perfect parallel.

The Obama and Trump campaigns were different, but I sorry--i dont believe the backlash is because of their campaign strategy but instead their politics.

You mention obama being 'positive' but that's very subjective. To other people, Trump is positive and hopeful.

And I don't agree that Trumps antics really had much at all to do with Facebook--nevermind social media or the internet at large. When Trump was testing his rhetoric at his gatherings, there wasn't any Facebook around.

And the meddling was greatly exaggerated. It's the type of freedom internet paragons all espoused. The internet is international. I didn't know we weren't allowed to comment on foriegn politics (Im not American citizen... Am I interfering right now?).

People talked about the internet creating a more democratic society. One where anyone can challenge the elite. Well guess what--thats exactly what happened. We just didn't like what came out when most people started opening their mouth.

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

#613

Post by md_ »

mrxd wrote: post #585
md_ wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what, in your mind, is a more “democratic” news media? I don’t think most journalists would accept the view you attribute to them—that they are opponents of democracy—but the logic seems like it applies to any expert specialization. Is that your argument—that all experts are inherently opponents of democracy because they “tell us what to think?”

> So what, in your mind, is a more “democratic” news media? Assuming the problems of voter participation are solved, I would like to see publicly funded journalism and the position of editor-in-chief as an elected position. My criticism of US journalism is that they lay claim to legitimacy by being above the rabble. That is why they are able to decide what's in the best interests of the country. That's a claim to 1)…

So, like, NPR? That already exists, of course.

Or should there be more direct political influence, as you suggest—NPR, but the editor in chief is elected every four years? That seems deeply problematic, for somewhat obvious reasons.

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

#614

Post by darkerside »

kcplate wrote: post #599
darkerside wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marie Antoinette was similarly not worried about the visceral expressions of very real problems across the nation of France. It's not a problem until it's a problem.

So overthrowing the French monarchy was a mistake? That’s a pretty ironic metaphor you got there…

No, being overthrown by the populace was a mistake from the perspective of the French monarchy. You might want to stop looking at the world as black and white at some point.

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

#615

Post by kcplate »

ethanbond wrote: post #611
kcplate wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that this event is characterized as an insurrection and a threat to the the United States. It wasn’t. If you want to shift the conversation to election integrity, that’s fine…but that was actually the whole point of the demonstrations. You have one group that felt that they had legitimate concerns about the election’s integrity. The other side downplayed those concerns, does not want to improve election…

To clarify, when I refer to ballots being destroyed I’m referring to electoral college ballots being destroyed by rioters during the Jan 6 insurrection. It wasn’t a coincidence that they were called to DC on that particular day when a normally extremely boring and mundane procedure is carried out. It has no symbolic value, it has no cultural value, it has no value except ensuring the legal, procedural basis for trans…

Does it? What exactly do you think it reveals? I’m not a Republican, and haven’t voted for a Republican for any office for decades. So what does that tell you?

It might reveal that I am not happy with the political party that once upon a time were liberal and good but are now just filled with power hungry intolerant authoritarians. At least the republicans don’t pretend that they are good people.

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

#616

Post by mrxd »

md_ wrote: post #613
mrxd wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what, in your mind, is a more “democratic” news media? Assuming the problems of voter participation are solved, I would like to see publicly funded journalism and the position of editor-in-chief as an elected position. My criticism of US journalism is that they lay claim to legitimacy by being above the rabble. That is why they are able to decide what's in the best interests of the country. That's a claim to 1)…

So, like, NPR? That already exists, of course. Or should there be more direct political influence, as you suggest—NPR, but the editor in chief is elected every four years? That seems deeply problematic, for somewhat obvious reasons.

I’d love to know what those obvious reasons are, and whether they don’t ultimately boil down to paternalistic conservative bromides that people can’t be trusted to govern themselves.

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

#617

Post by michaelmrose »

azernik wrote: post #602
michaelmrose wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harmful misinformation is fire in a crowded theater and threats and incitement to violence have never been protected. There have always been limits to free speech and it has always been possible to set ground rules for how companies operate.

"Fire in a crowded theater" is an assertion that there are limits to protected speech. It says nothing about what those limits are. Harmful misinformation is well inside those limits. (And in any case it's from a decision that was overturned 50 years ago.) For a somewhat snarky lawyer's explanation, see: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

I'm not confused on this matter I'm asserting it ought to change.

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

#618

Post by michaelmrose »

teddyh wrote: post #577
michaelmrose wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harmful crap defined. Statements that are either knowingly false or evidence a reckless disregard for the truth herein defined as being misinformation that a reasonable person would know it is false that would reasonably be said to lead to serious harm and death by actual persons. For example telling people to bleach their autistic kids buttholes, that the vaccine contains a chip to track you or will kill you as part…

OK, so you’ve now basically outlawed sarcasm, parody, art, and a number of other worthwhile things. Try again, please. Hard cases make bad law.

I don't think its hard to distinguish between telling people that they shouldn't get vaccinated against a deadly disease because the vaccine is part of an imaginary plot to kill you leading thousands of people to demonstrably die and sarcasm, parody, art, or those other unnamed worthwhile things.

Not only are some people unknowingly spreading such info but others are knowingly communicating such lies for the lols and for ad revenue.

When we enforce existing laws we take into account context and reasonable assertions of both judges and citizens to interpret situations and the law. The law books and case law is full of fuzzy situations we successfully litigate every day.

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

#619

Post by michaelmrose »

teddyh wrote: post #576
michaelmrose wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I called out a local individual for trying to scam people on the facebook market and got death threats from someone who lives an hour from me who wasn't banned from facebook. They basically aren't doing anything.

But death threats are already illegal. What does your proposal bring? Making it extra illegal? A failure of the police and other authorities to act does not mean that the law is at fault.

I'm talking about enforcement and making social media platforms liable if they don't deal with such situations expeditiously.

We don't need such standards per se because neither of us is a lunatic but if I were in this very comment to make threats of horrific violence against you or your family you can be assured that hacker news tiny moderation team would waste little time in removing my ability to post because they give a fuck about the health of this community.

Facebook by contrast deals with a fraction of 1% of such issues.

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

#620

Post by azernik »

michaelmrose wrote: post #617
azernik wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Fire in a crowded theater" is an assertion that there are limits to protected speech. It says nothing about what those limits are. Harmful misinformation is well inside those limits. (And in any case it's from a decision that was overturned 50 years ago.) For a somewhat snarky lawyer's explanation, see: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

I'm not confused on this matter I'm asserting it ought to change.

You said these things "have never been protected", and that "there have always been limits". Those are descriptive (and incorrect) statements about the actual law.

If you think the law is bad and should be different, say that. Don't phrase your policy goals as if they're the way the law currently works.

Post reply on HN