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

Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 164 posts

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#71

Post by fireball_blaze »

koboll wrote: post #61

Okay, so Facebook has said she - worked there for less than two years and had no direct reports - never attended some sort of key meeting - did not work on the subject matter in question ...and therefore, she lacks context which undermines some of her claims. Which of those is a matter of character, or a "disgusting" attack? They might be wrong, or they might be right but bringing up irrelevancies, but the writer is…

Some of those could also be said of Snowden, but he found some impactful, explosive material.

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#72

Post by xqcgrek2 »

The smear here is actually against Facebook. The whistleblower is clearly being boosted by Democratic operatives [1] and appeared in front of Congress the day after 60 minutes.

[1] Jen Psaki's former employer https://www.dailywire.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-leftis...

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#73

Post by gnicholas »

DeRock wrote: post #58
keewee7 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She founded Hinge that was bought by Match Group for $2 billion. Update: There is no verifiable information about her stake in the company.

There is no reality in which she had a 50% stake in hinge at the time of sale. I would be shocked if she had >1%. She was involved only in the very early stages.

True, though the stock market has gone up a ton since 2018. If she put $50M into a mix of tech stocks, crypto, and Bay Area real estate in 2018, she could have hundreds of millions by now. I agree she likely doesn't have a billion if the Hinge sale is the primary source of her wealth.

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#74

Post by klelatti »

koboll wrote: post #61

Okay, so Facebook has said she - worked there for less than two years and had no direct reports - never attended some sort of key meeting - did not work on the subject matter in question ...and therefore, she lacks context which undermines some of her claims. Which of those is a matter of character, or a "disgusting" attack? They might be wrong, or they might be right but bringing up irrelevancies, but the writer is…

They are trying to undermine her credibility - to say she wasn't important, that she doesn't really understand - whether it's a smear is borderline but it seems a pretty poor response to me.

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#75

Post by iammisc »

fireball_blaze wrote: post #71
koboll wrote: post #61

Okay, so Facebook has said she - worked there for less than two years and had no direct reports - never attended some sort of key meeting - did not work on the subject matter in question ...and therefore, she lacks context which undermines some of her claims. Which of those is a matter of character, or a "disgusting" attack? They might be wrong, or they might be right but bringing up irrelevancies, but the writer is…

Some of those could also be said of Snowden, but he found some impactful, explosive material.

Snowden advocated in favor of the government following their own law (not spying on people without judicially issued warrants). This 'whistleblower' is asking the government to violate their own law (the first amendment) by banning individual speech on these platforms.

EDIT: Honestly, I could care less about facebook. Although I think Mark Zuckerberg should be in jail (look at the allegations that his company knowingly experimented on people without their consent), individuals should have the ability to publish on the platform. If bakers must bake cakes, this is only fair.

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#76

Post by ryandrake »

I always liked Edward R. Murrow's response to Senator McCarthy's attempt to smear him: "Since he made no reference to any statements of fact that we made, we must conclude that he found no errors of fact."

1: https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/edwardrmurrowtomcc...

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#77

Post by burkaman »

keewee7 wrote: post #49
leahbarton wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your source on her wealth? I'm only finding second hand sources stating up to 5 million...

She founded Hinge that was bought by Match Group for $2 billion. Update: There is no verifiable information about her stake in the company.

Hinge is worth $2 billion today (according to some random site, would love a good source) and was fully acquired nearly 3 years ago. And there's no chance she had 50% equity. It's not even clear if she had any.

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#78

Post by commandlinefan »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #32
fireball_blaze wrote: post #2

"If the best Facebook can come up with is this disgusting attempt at character assassination, Haugen is telling God’s own truth. We should listen to her." A pretty powerful closing statement IMHO.

What a heavily editorialized statement for something that isn't marked as opinion. The whole article reeks of being written by someone who literally hates Facebook. And the use of the term "God's own truth" feels like a really underhanded and unjustified rhetorical trick. To use a analogy, It feels like they are declaring a winner during the opening argument of the prosecution, before the defense has even had a chanc…

> someone who literally hates Facebook

No, the author doesn't hate Facebook, nor does the "whistleblower". This isn't being drive by hate, it's being driven by love: love of government-mandated censorship. They're not alone, either, Zuckerberg himself is a huge fan; that's why his pushback here was so weak. Facebook was running TV commercials last summer calling for tighter legal restriction on social media.

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#79

Post by rPlayer6554 »

falcolas wrote: post #8
thrill wrote: post #5

How dare Facebook try to defend itself against public accusations.

As the article pointed out, they didn't defend themselves. They simply attempted to discredit the whistleblower, and change the subject. Let them defend themselves without character assassination, please.

> Facebook PR: “Today a Senate Commerce subcommittee held a hearing with a former product manager at Facebook who worked for the company for less than two years, had no direct reports, never attended a decision-point meeting with C-level executives — and testified more than six times to not working on the subject matter in question.”

Where does it mention her character??

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#80

Post by [deleted] »

iammisc wrote: post #75
fireball_blaze wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of those could also be said of Snowden, but he found some impactful, explosive material.

Snowden advocated in favor of the government following their own law (not spying on people without judicially issued warrants). This 'whistleblower' is asking the government to violate their own law (the first amendment) by banning individual speech on these platforms. EDIT: Honestly, I could care less about facebook. Although I think Mark Zuckerberg should be in jail (look at the allegations that his company knowing…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN