Live data from Hacker News

Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

theverge.com

81–90 of 164 posts

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#81
post #75

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…

> If bakers must bake cakes, this is only fair.

SCOTUS decided in favor of the bakers in that case, even if SCOTUS left the underlying question undecided (in either direction).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#82
Not seeing any "character assassination" in any of the quotes. None of Facebook's defense lines, low quality as they may be, seem overly personal.

For the record, I fully side with the whistleblower's claims. It's just that this article is very emotional, and could have been so much more. This is a fascinating quote the author failed to address fully:

"Facebook PR: “Despite all this, we agree on one thing; it’s time to begin to create standard rules for the internet. It’s been 25 years since the rules for the internet have been updated, and instead of expecting the industry to make societal decisions that belong to legislators, it is time for Congress to act."

Facebook has a point here. We don't even know what Facebook is. A media company? A news organization? A shop? A dating site? And if it does all of these things, and does so at planetary scale, is has the potential to do harm to big parts of the world, in countless ways. Yet there's pretty much zero rules.

I think we vastly underestimate how complicated the balancing act is. If Instagram does mental harm to teenage girls, whilst this very likely was not the original intent, what exactly is the "correct" course of action, in a way codified in law? Should it be forbidden for other girls (influencers) to broadcast their beauty lifestyle? Should there be a maximum time cap for consumers to browse the feed? The China way? Should influencers just be deplatformed if we don't like them, taking away their income?

None of these rules or laws seem very plausible or sane to me, and this is just one example of how Facebook can do harm.

Anyway, to end constructively, I'd say a first step is to force Facebook to give full access to its underlying (anonymized) data. If we've created a planetary-scale monster, we should treat it as a special case.

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#83
post #49

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.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are some points I notice about this whole thing: - Facebook has stated (in the press release the article is reporting on) that they support regulation. This is typical for large market incumbents, who have been said to always support fixed-overhead regulation, because it hurts smaller competitors more than it hurts them. - Washington loves regulating things and can be safely assumed to be pro-policy in most case…

Nice analysis. I'm certainly not suggesting that this is a coordinated campaign by FB without evidence to suggest it, but the net result of these viral news events could be FB getting the regulation that they want. If one did want to coordinate such a campaign, there's a certain society-wide informational/narrative vulnerability that makes such a campaign potentially attractive: -You have a public who loves latching…

It is certainly coordinated. Several of the parties involved are influential and have a PR record in Democratic politics.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-leftis...

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#85
post #82

Not seeing any "character assassination" in any of the quotes. None of Facebook's defense lines, low quality as they may be, seem overly personal. For the record, I fully side with the whistleblower's claims. It's just that this article is very emotional, and could have been so much more. This is a fascinating quote the author failed to address fully: "Facebook PR: “Despite all this, we agree on one thing; it’s time…

I forgot to add one important part: guess which company will be uniquely capable to comply with whatever regulation comes up with?

You guessed correctly.

Guess whom can't comply? Indeed, everybody else. That's why they welcome regulation.

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm paraphrasing a similar comment I made on a different thread, but this whole situation seems fishy to me... Out of the blue some larger-than-life person (with impeccable credentials, no less) comes out of the woodwork and is lauded with attention while the big news outlets make this massive push against Facebook, all while congress is holding hearings about regulating social media. Then a massive outage happens at…

> This woman is also remarkably calm, well-spoken, knowledgeable, and articulate for someone testifying before the Senate for the very first time - all while being broadcast around the globe, live on television. But what if the reason she is being heared is because she is remarkably calm, well-spoken, knowledgeable and articulate? Should that theory not be tested first accoring to Occams razor? [1] [1] https://en.wik…

I did indeed include the possibility that she's just perfectly suited for this:

>"Perhaps she's simply a natural"

That is certainly within the realm of possibility. That being said, to me, it seems incredibly unlikely that someone in her situation would be so articulate, collected, and unflappable after being suddenly thrust onto the national stage in just a few short days. Even if she knew she was going to attract a ton of attention when she came forward, she just doesn't seem to be showing the kind of body language that reflects someone in her situation who doesn't know what is about to happen next.

Again, to me, the most simple explanation is that she was coached or prepared beforehand and knew what to expect. I wouldn't put it past some political operatives to slip her some questions from a few senators before the hearings began.

This next part is going to sound the most conspiratorial, so take it with a grain of salt. Despite all of what I wrote, she really could be the real deal and there was no conspiracy behind the scenes to make the perfect storm for Facebook. But to me, that begs the question of, "how lucky were we that such a person with impeccable credentials just so happened to be the perfect whistleblower to take down Facebook?"

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#87
post #4

I'm sure what she's saying is only part of the evil that Facebook represents, but there's something fishy about the whole setup. Why is she getting full media coverage and support, when previous whistleblowers were roundly ignored? She's a very wealthy person (1B estimated), so perhaps she's fairly well insulated from any blowback? But again, why is now the time to pile on Facebook, and why this person? [edit] Hint:…

Here are some points I notice about this whole thing: - Facebook has stated (in the press release the article is reporting on) that they support regulation. This is typical for large market incumbents, who have been said to always support fixed-overhead regulation, because it hurts smaller competitors more than it hurts them. - Washington loves regulating things and can be safely assumed to be pro-policy in most case…

> The public is not presently pro-regulation and nobody really knows what form the regulations should take.

A majority of Americans support regulation of big tech https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/20/56-of-ameri...

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This woman is also remarkably calm, well-spoken, knowledgeable, and articulate for someone testifying before the Senate for the very first time - all while being broadcast around the globe, live on television. But what if the reason she is being heared is because she is remarkably calm, well-spoken, knowledgeable and articulate? Should that theory not be tested first accoring to Occams razor? [1] [1] https://en.wik…

I did indeed include the possibility that she's just perfectly suited for this: >"Perhaps she's simply a natural" That is certainly within the realm of possibility. That being said, to me , it seems incredibly unlikely that someone in her situation would be so articulate, collected, and unflappable after being suddenly thrust onto the national stage in just a few short days. Even if she knew she was going to attract…

> Again, to me, the most simple explanation is that she was coached or prepared beforehand and knew what to expect. I wouldn't put it past some political operatives to slip her some questions from a few senators before the hearings began.

This is entirely standard practice in Congressional hearings.

Concrete example: the Kavanaugh hearings.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/kavanaugh-preps-se...

> According to Grassley spokesman George Hartmann, the committee has also reached out to Cristina Miranda who posted on Facebook that she had heard about the incident while in school with Ford, but has has since said she actually has no knowledge of the incident. Miranda declined to talk to the committee, according to the aide.

> The panel has also interacted with an attorney for an unnamed person that's included in Ford's original letter, but whose name was redacted, but the committee hasn't received a formal response yet.

> Kavanaugh, meanwhile, was back at the White House complex on Thursday, amid a week of visits that have included preparation for the possibility of additional Senate testimony, according to a person involved in the confirmation process.

> Separately, a Republican Senate aide who has been briefed on Kavanaugh’s preparations said the practice sessions “have been going well,” adding that he’s been spending his days as if a hearing will go forward on Monday.

> Mike Davis, chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee, drew scrutiny Wednesday for posting and then deleting tweets saying he had personally questioned Kavanaugh and referring derisively to Ford's legal team — and indicating that, despite his current role in the investigation, he backed the nominee's confirmation.

Some of them even have forms for whistleblowers to reach out.

https://crenshaw.house.gov/whistleblower

"Please describe your goals in working with Rep. Crenshaw (e.g. oversight, legislative action)?"

Re: Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This woman is also remarkably calm, well-spoken, knowledgeable, and articulate for someone testifying before the Senate for the very first time - all while being broadcast around the globe, live on television. But what if the reason she is being heared is because she is remarkably calm, well-spoken, knowledgeable and articulate? Should that theory not be tested first accoring to Occams razor? [1] [1] https://en.wik…

I did indeed include the possibility that she's just perfectly suited for this: >"Perhaps she's simply a natural" That is certainly within the realm of possibility. That being said, to me , it seems incredibly unlikely that someone in her situation would be so articulate, collected, and unflappable after being suddenly thrust onto the national stage in just a few short days. Even if she knew she was going to attract…

So my suggested points of investigation would be:

How many whilst blowers have tried to take down facebook?

How many of those have been articulate etc i.e. have the skills this woman has?

What are the examples of inarticulate, poorly spoken whilstblowers who have taken down organisations in the information age?

Not sure who the burden of proof is on here tbh. Proof takes work.

Post reply on HN