Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Facebook’s attempt to smear the whistleblower
https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/5/22711182/facebook-whistleblower-smear-pr-response
163 comments
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.
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.
> This 'whistleblower' is asking the government to violate their own law (the first amendment) by banning individual speech on these platforms.
I could be mistaken, but I don't think she is specifically advocating for that? I believe she is saying specific things should be regulated...mainly the ability to configure timelines, greater control on use by teens, etc.
I could be mistaken, but I don't think she is specifically advocating for that? I believe she is saying specific things should be regulated...mainly the ability to configure timelines, greater control on use by teens, etc.
I don't wholesale disagree with everything she has to say. As I've stated multiple times on this thread, I believe Facebook should be liquidated and its executives, including Mark Zuckerberg jailed.
I am referring to these points of the testimony:
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/FC8A558E-824E...
> The result has been a system that amplifies division, extremism, and polarization — and undermining societies around the world. In some cases, this dangerous online talk has led to actual violence that harms and even kills people. In other cases, their profit optimizing machine is generating self-harm and self-hate — especially for vulnerable groups, like teenage girls. These problems have been confirmed repeatedly by Facebook’s own internal research.
While she is correct that facebook has allowed people to talk that's led to violence (some of it very justified... see the arab spring, etc), and that facebook contributes to division, I don't believe the government should be in the business of regulating the speech of individual users of these websites. Ultimately, that just means the government just gets to squash dissenting voices. Ending the 'dangerous online talk' may today mean stopping violent extremists, but may tomorrow become "Don't discuss anti-government policy messages because it may inspire some people to commite violence" which is a slippery slope.
For example, the whistleblower claims that some online talk amplifies extremism which 'undermines societies around the world'. Some societies deserve to be undermined. Few would batt an eye if Facebook were used by North Korean dissidents to organize around toppling that country's dictatorship.
I am referring to these points of the testimony:
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/FC8A558E-824E...
> The result has been a system that amplifies division, extremism, and polarization — and undermining societies around the world. In some cases, this dangerous online talk has led to actual violence that harms and even kills people. In other cases, their profit optimizing machine is generating self-harm and self-hate — especially for vulnerable groups, like teenage girls. These problems have been confirmed repeatedly by Facebook’s own internal research.
While she is correct that facebook has allowed people to talk that's led to violence (some of it very justified... see the arab spring, etc), and that facebook contributes to division, I don't believe the government should be in the business of regulating the speech of individual users of these websites. Ultimately, that just means the government just gets to squash dissenting voices. Ending the 'dangerous online talk' may today mean stopping violent extremists, but may tomorrow become "Don't discuss anti-government policy messages because it may inspire some people to commite violence" which is a slippery slope.
For example, the whistleblower claims that some online talk amplifies extremism which 'undermines societies around the world'. Some societies deserve to be undermined. Few would batt an eye if Facebook were used by North Korean dissidents to organize around toppling that country's dictatorship.
[deleted]
> 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...
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...
SCOTUS didn't comment on the question, remanded the case back. When another person brought a similar case to the CO board, they found against the baker: https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/18/us/jack-phillips-colorado-bak...
You should pay attention to what's going on before commenting on out of date news.
Also, a similar case in washington of an old lady florist forced to provide flowers for an event she doesn't believe in. This is like asking a jewish deli to cater the nazis.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gay-couple-wins-case-florist...
In that case, the SC explicitly denied the request, thus de facto legalizing forcing individual people with consciensce disagreements working in their own business to do business with those they disagree with. This is an obvious violation of the individual right to freedom of conscience.
Meanwhile, facebook, a multi-billion dollar powerful corporation, which does not enjoy constitutional rights neither by nature nor law, is given a free pass to exercise its conscience. Sorry... I'll speak for the little guy.
You should pay attention to what's going on before commenting on out of date news.
Also, a similar case in washington of an old lady florist forced to provide flowers for an event she doesn't believe in. This is like asking a jewish deli to cater the nazis.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gay-couple-wins-case-florist...
In that case, the SC explicitly denied the request, thus de facto legalizing forcing individual people with consciensce disagreements working in their own business to do business with those they disagree with. This is an obvious violation of the individual right to freedom of conscience.
Meanwhile, facebook, a multi-billion dollar powerful corporation, which does not enjoy constitutional rights neither by nature nor law, is given a free pass to exercise its conscience. Sorry... I'll speak for the little guy.
> This is like asking a jewish deli to cater the nazis.
No, it is not.
Being a Nazi is a choice. Being gay is not. (Also, legally, being a Nazi is not a protected class.)
No, it is not.
Being a Nazi is a choice. Being gay is not. (Also, legally, being a Nazi is not a protected class.)
Being a Nazi is a protected class
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp...
And having a gay wedding is indeed a choice, and Jack Phillips shouldn't be forced to participate if he believes that his belief in his god makes it so that participating is akin to taking part in evil.
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp...
And having a gay wedding is indeed a choice, and Jack Phillips shouldn't be forced to participate if he believes that his belief in his god makes it so that participating is akin to taking part in evil.
No, Nazis aren't a protected class. The ACLU (correctly) argued that they've First Amendment rights just like everyone else; it has nothing to do with membership in a protected class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States
Well yess... Being a human individual in this country entitles you to believe and speak how you want. Nazis are still humans, despite their behavior
Yes, Nazis have Constitutional rights.
They are not a protected class, which means you're allowed to do things like not hire Nazis without running afoul of Federal discrimination law.
I can be fired for being a Nazi, or a redhead, or a comic book fan. I cannot be fired for my skin color, or my national origin, or my religion. That's how protected classes work.
They are not a protected class, which means you're allowed to do things like not hire Nazis without running afoul of Federal discrimination law.
I can be fired for being a Nazi, or a redhead, or a comic book fan. I cannot be fired for my skin color, or my national origin, or my religion. That's how protected classes work.
Okay, sorry, you're bringing in firing, but I'm talking about baking cakes as an individual proprietor of a business. If the claim is 'being conservative is not a proteted class'... okay, but religion certainly is, and my religion is more conservative than mainstream conservatism, yet I've still been subjected to facebook censorship. So, can I claim Facebook must let me post content, just like Phillips must bake a cake, because of my protected class status, religion?
If not, why not? If so, why? If the answer is not 'Yes facebook must publish', how do you square this away that the answer is 'Yes you must bake'.?
If not, why not? If so, why? If the answer is not 'Yes facebook must publish', how do you square this away that the answer is 'Yes you must bake'.?
>asking the government to violate their own law (the first amendment)
I don’t believe this is the case, isn’t the whistleblower accusing Facebook of lying to its investors and has filed SEC complaints for the matter?
I don’t believe this is the case, isn’t the whistleblower accusing Facebook of lying to its investors and has filed SEC complaints for the matter?
[deleted]
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.
That's assuming this is their only "defense". Was it though?
YES. They vaguely said they disagree with her characterization. This was the only defense. q
because they're not even attempting to refute anything she says, which the Verge article points out. If you're going to try to smear someone by attacking their lack of experience it would probably make sense to point out how that lack of experience manifests itself in errors in her judgement.
Of course they cannot do that because she is literally citing their own words. Which is why this is just a thinly veiled, pathetic attack on a worker.
Of course they cannot do that because she is literally citing their own words. Which is why this is just a thinly veiled, pathetic attack on a worker.
>If you're going to try to smear someone by attacking their lack of experience
Re-read the parent comment. How is the whistleblower getting smeared based on the assertions above? Are they not factual AND relevant?
edit:
I see comments below talking past this sub-thread. Let's get down to definitions.
> Smear: damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.
At best, the article's premise that FB's claims "smear" the whistleblower is flawed and non-constructive even if you're seeking to slit FB's throat.
Re-read the parent comment. How is the whistleblower getting smeared based on the assertions above? Are they not factual AND relevant?
edit:
I see comments below talking past this sub-thread. Let's get down to definitions.
> Smear: damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.
At best, the article's premise that FB's claims "smear" the whistleblower is flawed and non-constructive even if you're seeking to slit FB's throat.
they're not relevant at all because you don't even need to work at facebook to disseminate facebook's research. It's a smear because it's a completely irrelevant ad hominem. The research is straight forward enough, and now public, so that everyone can actually come to the exact same conclusion she did simply by reading it. What she has done is made it public. And Facebook does not refute is because they cannot, so they go after the person's CV.
Can you explain to me using basic logic what the connection is between your career status at facebook and reading research of the effects of facebook products on its users? what's next, do I need to work at Exxon to understand climate science?
Can you explain to me using basic logic what the connection is between your career status at facebook and reading research of the effects of facebook products on its users? what's next, do I need to work at Exxon to understand climate science?
No, they are all ad hominem attacks. She shared ~18000 documents. Doesn't matter who the messenger is at this point, it's all about the veracity of the documents themselves.
Did Facebook deny creating those documents? No. Did they refute statements from those documents? No. Hence statements about the whistleblower are not relevant.
Did Facebook deny creating those documents? No. Did they refute statements from those documents? No. Hence statements about the whistleblower are not relevant.
She hasn't shared these documents with the public. All we have to go on is her summary of them, and the documents NBC News has selectively deemed relevant. NBC news has only shared 7000 pages, I'd assume this is probably 10% of the documents. We're essentially being asked to judge facebook when the prosecution is withholding 90% of the evidence.
edit: It appears the shared documents were from a previous leak, I can't locate any of the documents from this leak.
edit: It appears the shared documents were from a previous leak, I can't locate any of the documents from this leak.
If I tell you the sky is green the best way to refute that to your audience is to ignore me entirely as a person and instead tell people to go outside and look up: Show them some evidence and factually refute my claim. You don’t say “this man isn’t a sky expert, has never spoken to sky experts, and should therefore be dismissed!”
The parent comment’s point would seem to be that this person is making a claim that should be refutable with evidence. But the evidence is Facebook’s own data supporting her claim so they can’t do that. Instead, they diminish her credibility. It’s not “smearing” in the sense of calling her a baby eater, but it is a credentials fallacy meant to make people dismiss her claims regardless of validity.
The parent comment’s point would seem to be that this person is making a claim that should be refutable with evidence. But the evidence is Facebook’s own data supporting her claim so they can’t do that. Instead, they diminish her credibility. It’s not “smearing” in the sense of calling her a baby eater, but it is a credentials fallacy meant to make people dismiss her claims regardless of validity.
I get an argument that it's not pure, ad hominem character attacks as a "smear".
This is really more a flaw of the article, but can you add data that directly refutes the claims raised by this article?
e.g. in her leaked emails, does any of that refute the wording/claims raised in this article?
I'm asking in good faith.
This is really more a flaw of the article, but can you add data that directly refutes the claims raised by this article?
e.g. in her leaked emails, does any of that refute the wording/claims raised in this article?
I'm asking in good faith.
If the person never saw a sky before or never worked on facebook sky but passed by a window and saw a green sky and freaked out I would mention it. Context matters.
How are they relevant?
>because they're not even attempting to refute anything she says
Yes. So they're right but bringing up irrelevancies. It's a diversionary tactic, no doubt. But it's not a "smear".
Yes. So they're right but bringing up irrelevancies. It's a diversionary tactic, no doubt. But it's not a "smear".
The goal is to divert discussion from the issue and make the discussion about her personality. The "disgusting" part is not what Facebook says about her (their folks clearly don't have much to smear Haugen with if this is the worst), it's that they don't want to address the allegations directly. The "smear" such as it is, falls flat, but it's reprehensible for Facebook's people to want to make the discussion about her rather than about the practices of the company that employed her.
If she were in a visible position where she'd have learned this information, the people in PR could easily look up what projects she was on them come up with a targeted response disclosing only those facts.
However, since she didn't work on anything relevant, they have to do research without any guidance.
It's Day 1. They can't come out and say "we don't know what she's talking about or where she got her data, so we can't refute it."
As PR, the worst thing for them to do is deny something only to be hit by factual evidence; they'd rather know all the evidence to begin with them try to put it in a good light or reveal a good reason for things being that way.
However, since she didn't work on anything relevant, they have to do research without any guidance.
It's Day 1. They can't come out and say "we don't know what she's talking about or where she got her data, so we can't refute it."
As PR, the worst thing for them to do is deny something only to be hit by factual evidence; they'd rather know all the evidence to begin with them try to put it in a good light or reveal a good reason for things being that way.
Which is why the correct response is along the lines of "we take these allegations very seriously but have no comment at this time". Coming out of the gate with a response that does nothing but attempt to cast aspersions on the individual immediately brings to mind what happened to people like climatologist Michael E. Mann
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's typical for Vox reporting (parent company of the Verge) -- but also typical for pretty much any vaguely left leaning publication (see also nytimes). They seek out the most populist angle on every story, regardless of how eyerollingly absurd it is. See: https://www.city-journal.org/journalism-advocacy-over-report...
OK, you're responding to the fact that Facebook is saying things that are not disgusting about the whistleblower, who revealed really important information that Facebook is doing reprehensible things that threaten the long term sustainability of the democratic political systems currently in place.
What about your focus on the word "disgusting" is worth resolving BEFORE we get to the threat to the long term sustainability of the democratic political systems currently in place?
What about your focus on the word "disgusting" is worth resolving BEFORE we get to the threat to the long term sustainability of the democratic political systems currently in place?
I recommend you study logical fallacies.
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...
1: https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/edwardrmurrowtomcc...
Brilliant. Ever since watching “good night, and good luck” Edward R Murrow has been a favorite.
Murrow really was a treasure.
Top comment from the FT (paraphrased somewhat)
> If this is all that your comms department can get through legal, you know what’s being said is almost 100% true.
> If this is all that your comms department can get through legal, you know what’s being said is almost 100% true.
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.
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.
Mark Zuckerberg has been pushing for regulation for years. He wants this for two reasons:
1. Abdicating responsibility so that when the public or politicians complain about Facebook hosting or not hosting some content he can say it's not his problem, he follows the law.
2. The second is for regulatory capture. Once a social network gets a stigma of being uncool, people move on to the next thing. His status and net worth are tied up in an entity he must aggressively defend against becoming the next MySpace. If he can't buy out upstarts anymore because of antitrust then the next best protection is to make it so difficult to build a new network without a team of lawyers and moderators that no one would even think about doing it.
1. Abdicating responsibility so that when the public or politicians complain about Facebook hosting or not hosting some content he can say it's not his problem, he follows the law.
2. The second is for regulatory capture. Once a social network gets a stigma of being uncool, people move on to the next thing. His status and net worth are tied up in an entity he must aggressively defend against becoming the next MySpace. If he can't buy out upstarts anymore because of antitrust then the next best protection is to make it so difficult to build a new network without a team of lawyers and moderators that no one would even think about doing it.
Mark Zuckerberg has also been opposing regulation for years, which means you need to qualify your statement: Mark Zuckerberg has been pushing for his preferred regulation as the only regulation, for years. That's nice. Me too. Neither serves the country.
Good points. I violently agree that regulation favors Big Tech, instead of harm them.
But I still believe there's a category of societal issues that are extremely hard to codify into rules, even if Facebook would be morally sound. It would still be hard or impossible.
But I still believe there's a category of societal issues that are extremely hard to codify into rules, even if Facebook would be morally sound. It would still be hard or impossible.
> Abdicating responsibility
Is it avoidance or asking for a democratic process to provide guidance? For example, yes automakers did push for a lot of rulemaking that cemented the car's position in transportation and yes a rule about driving on the left or right side is better decided by the community of drivers represented by their government, not GM alone.
Is it avoidance or asking for a democratic process to provide guidance? For example, yes automakers did push for a lot of rulemaking that cemented the car's position in transportation and yes a rule about driving on the left or right side is better decided by the community of drivers represented by their government, not GM alone.
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.
You guessed correctly.
Guess whom can't comply? Indeed, everybody else. That's why they welcome regulation.
> We don't even know what Facebook is. A media company? A news organization? A shop? A dating site?
Facebook is an entity that controls the information flow reaching its users and shapes it in the interest of the highest bidder.
Facebook is an entity that controls the information flow reaching its users and shapes it in the interest of the highest bidder.
"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.
A pretty powerful closing statement IMHO.
>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.”
This doesn't sound like character assassination, it's Facebook claiming that she wasn't informed enough. It would be like the NSA telling us not to listen to Snowden because he didn't actually work on the programs that he obtained documents about.
This doesn't sound like character assassination, it's Facebook claiming that she wasn't informed enough. It would be like the NSA telling us not to listen to Snowden because he didn't actually work on the programs that he obtained documents about.
Character assassination is not done in one press release. It's done in a campaign of PRs and cossetting friendly journalists and newspapers.
Perhaps it's premature to call it character assassination, but we've seen this play out quite a few times.
Perhaps it's premature to call it character assassination, but we've seen this play out quite a few times.
I believe that the term of art is "backgrounding".
As in the company provides "background" information such as seems to be the case here. Of course, this is really the company framing the conversation and deflecting the criticisms without addressing them.
I see the discussion here is largely fixated on whether this constitutes a "smear" or not. So, it seems to be working from Facebook's point of view as we are not discussing the actual allegations against them.
As in the company provides "background" information such as seems to be the case here. Of course, this is really the company framing the conversation and deflecting the criticisms without addressing them.
I see the discussion here is largely fixated on whether this constitutes a "smear" or not. So, it seems to be working from Facebook's point of view as we are not discussing the actual allegations against them.
[deleted]
It’s a rather unconvincing but mean way to discount someone. If anything, FB saying how unrelated she is to these problems absolves her of being a part of it. Focus on the documents.
Despite that, not everyone has the will to connect these dots.
Despite that, not everyone has the will to connect these dots.
Sounds to me this type of language can also backfire; next step of Congress could be to then subpoena someone who did work on the subject matter and did have C-level exec access...
You're not wrong. But Facebook's attempt to discredit Frances Haugen is poor.
From the congressional hearing today, she did not answer questions beyond her expertise [1], and she had over a decade of relevant experience in Engagement Based Ranking algorithms [2], which was largely the focus of the hearing.
[1] https://youtu.be/GoSPmqqKams?t=4160
[2] https://youtu.be/GoSPmqqKams?t=3482
From the congressional hearing today, she did not answer questions beyond her expertise [1], and she had over a decade of relevant experience in Engagement Based Ranking algorithms [2], which was largely the focus of the hearing.
[1] https://youtu.be/GoSPmqqKams?t=4160
[2] https://youtu.be/GoSPmqqKams?t=3482
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 chance to fully respond: "If Facebook had evidence, it would show it." Doesn't the author realize that kind of counter evidence will come later?
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 chance to fully respond: "If Facebook had evidence, it would show it." Doesn't the author realize that kind of counter evidence will come later?
> 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.
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.
"telling God’s own truth"
Tremendously convincing.
Tremendously convincing.
As opposed to alternative truths.
Just as long as a stack of bibles is involved.
The use of "God" in that statement refers to an objective source. While I'm not a fan of the phrase, it clearly means an absolute truth. No bibles necessary.
> The use of "God" in that statement refers to an objective source.
Do tell.
Do tell.
Like I said, it means a supposed absolute truth. As there is no objective source, you can use a term for what would be an objective source, "god."
"[A] supposed absolute truth" Is that like a redundancy (absolute and truth) wrapped in a contradiction (supposed and absolute truth)?
If there is no such thing (i.e. no objective source) why would one use any term for it?
Why would one modify truth to be "god's own?" Is it a rhetorical claim to the authority/authenticity of an unseen third party?
If there is no such thing (i.e. no objective source) why would one use any term for it?
Why would one modify truth to be "god's own?" Is it a rhetorical claim to the authority/authenticity of an unseen third party?
It's a cutesy way of saying the actual truth. Language is full of such ridiculous contradictions used to express things, I wouldn't use this one but I don't see how it is particularly objectionable.
If God is for us, who could be against us?
What she's telling, or not telling, is irrelevant, and indeed, partly because she has little experience at FB and not in a position that would make her privy to nefarious plots.
What is relevant, is the documents, which are not being released in full. Only after they are will we see the full picture, so anything happening before that is just manufactured narrative to serve someone's purpose.
What is relevant, is the documents, which are not being released in full. Only after they are will we see the full picture, so anything happening before that is just manufactured narrative to serve someone's purpose.
Sounds more like a logical fallacy.
Has anyone got the documents themselves, or only reporter's descriptions of the documents?
My guess is they're using the same strategy as the Snowden leaks - drop a new bombshell at regular intervals through the media, then eventually open source the whole thing. The idea is the maximize the impact of the leaks, not to hide anything (of course, you can disagree about whether it actually does maximize the impact.)
Not only does it maximize the impact of the leaks, now those defending themselves against the leaks must be very careful not to create a new set of lies that could be disproved by further leaks.
As a hypothetical
FB: we only did that once!
Leaker: in fact you did that many times (shows papers)
As a hypothetical
FB: we only did that once!
Leaker: in fact you did that many times (shows papers)
This may be part of their plan, but Snowden used that method for the purpose of hiding things too. He wanted reports about the various software projects being used to be public, he didn't want the software itself to be public.
Vetting data over dumping everything often has benefits.
Vetting data over dumping everything often has benefits.
Snippets of the source documents are presented in the WSJ Facebook stories that preceded the naming of the whistleblower. They are paywalled here, but you might be able to find the stories on certain archive sites.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039
Yes. At this point in the world we need not take anyone's word for what a corpus says or does not say. Either the data, query, and processing exist and are documented or they may as well be making things up.
Public forkable repo or gtfo.
Public forkable repo or gtfo.
Facebook would fight tooth and nail to get those documents removed if they show up on GitHub. They’d win, too - since they own copyright.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
(Emphasis mine.)
> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
(Emphasis mine.)
Fair use is a positive defense though, so you'd have to go through a trial (assumption being Facebook throws enough lawyers at it to make it impossible for a "it's obviously fair use" argument work) to assert it.
A repo need not be in a US or any jurisdiction. If it is important enough to have legislative talking time, it is important enough to be made public for people to make their own decisions about it. By keeping it private this is all hat and no cattle.
This is what passes for journalism these days? This reads like a snarky blog or Reddit post than an article. I’m surprised a few Zuckerberg memes weren’t included. I say this as someone who wants Facebook broken up or highly regulated.
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...
[1] Jen Psaki's former employer https://www.dailywire.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-leftis...
Wow. That was some hit piece. Nothing was spared — They even managed to "casually" reveal her sexuality. For some reason.
Absolutely disgusting. I can't believe intelligent people read, let alone cite, this Enquirer-level garbage.
Absolutely disgusting. I can't believe intelligent people read, let alone cite, this Enquirer-level garbage.
Ok yes. But lots of things are true here 1) that’s a hit piece and 2) Francis is all about Francis and 3) Facebook is an awful company.
Yes, the smear is against Facebook, and not the person releasing internal research from Facebook itself, that was not written by the whistleblower.
And obviously, discounting someone presenting factual evidence that at the moment is unchallenged based on perceived personal politics is fair game, reasonable, and the measure of good faith discussion.
And obviously, discounting someone presenting factual evidence that at the moment is unchallenged based on perceived personal politics is fair game, reasonable, and the measure of good faith discussion.
Facebook is staring to show some really bad cracks. I think they should start checking their PR a bit more because if they follow this path, they could have congress in their neck for some time.
FYI, the official reply: https://about.fb.com/news/2021/09/research-teen-well-being-a...
It's tough to call Facebook's response a "smear" or "disgusting attempt at character assassination" since it didn't address her character at all. It certainly does attempt to discredit her, and it is cowardly and ultimately doesn't address the issues she brought up. But the author of this article is a bit hyperbolic.
[deleted]
Social media legislation will just benefit fb since it'll ultimately cripple every social competitor.
Reading hacker news comments today, I found out that:
1. this is fishy
2. she is a political operative for the dems
3. she has a liberal bias therefore this is all fishy and she cannot be trusted
4. she is rich and has some backing so she is definitely a political operative. This one is especially true because if she was poor Facebook would have been SLAPPed her already into shutting up. So there's no winning here.
5. (US) adults are responsible enough for the government to not have to regulate social media. Let's conveniently temporarily forget about the Rohingya minority.
6. Facebook is a net positive for civilization
7. nothing is actually whistleblown, we already knew all that. Therefore, we're ok with it and we should ignore this. Also see 1.
8. We're dealing with Schrödinger's censorship. Conservative voices are being censored on Facebook which is ran by 'libs' and at the same time they're not censored as the government (also libs) prepares to censor them. Or censor them more? Who knows anymore. TLDR they're going to be censored.
9. the staple of 'tech companies' is discussed all over the place as someone is talking to congress about its internal workings so the news is all over HN. Super fishy (see 1) so definitely a hit piece. If there was only one or two links it would probably be fine. But so many links may definitely be the hand of some lib political operative. Or not? Who knows? We're just saying that to muddy the waters. Big if true!
I think I'm going to be taking a break from forums in general. Either some Facebook friendly PR machine got activated or the collective mind has been poisoned by years and years of misinformation and generally sowing mistrust to the point of 'everything is a conspiracy and nothing is real'.
1. this is fishy
2. she is a political operative for the dems
3. she has a liberal bias therefore this is all fishy and she cannot be trusted
4. she is rich and has some backing so she is definitely a political operative. This one is especially true because if she was poor Facebook would have been SLAPPed her already into shutting up. So there's no winning here.
5. (US) adults are responsible enough for the government to not have to regulate social media. Let's conveniently temporarily forget about the Rohingya minority.
6. Facebook is a net positive for civilization
7. nothing is actually whistleblown, we already knew all that. Therefore, we're ok with it and we should ignore this. Also see 1.
8. We're dealing with Schrödinger's censorship. Conservative voices are being censored on Facebook which is ran by 'libs' and at the same time they're not censored as the government (also libs) prepares to censor them. Or censor them more? Who knows anymore. TLDR they're going to be censored.
9. the staple of 'tech companies' is discussed all over the place as someone is talking to congress about its internal workings so the news is all over HN. Super fishy (see 1) so definitely a hit piece. If there was only one or two links it would probably be fine. But so many links may definitely be the hand of some lib political operative. Or not? Who knows? We're just saying that to muddy the waters. Big if true!
I think I'm going to be taking a break from forums in general. Either some Facebook friendly PR machine got activated or the collective mind has been poisoned by years and years of misinformation and generally sowing mistrust to the point of 'everything is a conspiracy and nothing is real'.
[deleted]
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: She's in fact calling for more censorship of the views she doesn't like.
[edit] Greenwald nails it (just published): https://greenwald.substack.com/p/democrats-and-media-do-not-...
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: She's in fact calling for more censorship of the views she doesn't like.
[edit] Greenwald nails it (just published): https://greenwald.substack.com/p/democrats-and-media-do-not-...
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 cases. More to the point, incumbents today are far more concerned about the possibility of being blindsided in their campaigns by maneuvers on a platform their own team doesn't know how to work with, than they are about the difficult to quantify pros and cons of balancing antitrust and libertarian policy. You'd expect them to be pro-regulation on average, if it reduces the importance of the internet in running campaigns.
- The public is not presently pro-regulation and nobody really knows what form the regulations should take.
So in a nutshell, everyone who's powerful in this situation wants the same outcome, and all that is left is to convince the public to support a bill which will probably be titled something like "Cyberspeech Freedom Act of 2022." Lobbyists may have already drafted it, and we can expect that well-meaning activists will be swept along by the push and end up supporting something they wouldn't like if they fully understood what it was.
- 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 cases. More to the point, incumbents today are far more concerned about the possibility of being blindsided in their campaigns by maneuvers on a platform their own team doesn't know how to work with, than they are about the difficult to quantify pros and cons of balancing antitrust and libertarian policy. You'd expect them to be pro-regulation on average, if it reduces the importance of the internet in running campaigns.
- The public is not presently pro-regulation and nobody really knows what form the regulations should take.
So in a nutshell, everyone who's powerful in this situation wants the same outcome, and all that is left is to convince the public to support a bill which will probably be titled something like "Cyberspeech Freedom Act of 2022." Lobbyists may have already drafted it, and we can expect that well-meaning activists will be swept along by the push and end up supporting something they wouldn't like if they fully understood what it was.
> The public is not presently pro-regulation
I guess that this is true for the USA. But Facebook is a global company and other countries may be more regulation friendly.
I guess that this is true for the USA. But Facebook is a global company and other countries may be more regulation friendly.
[deleted]
This seems to be a case of tech monopolies usurping power from the traditional power brokers who are now pushing back demanding to be put in charge again.
100% share your take on the subject.
Additionally, reading the whistleblower's account and her opinions/goals struck me as an incredibly naive way of thinking...although I think she may be genuine (she's my age and I have many peers like her).
What kind of organization respects the value of complete top-down organizational change initiated by rank and file members of the company? Who would think an organization would give them that kind of power? The role that she was hired for seems destined to give her no resources to accomplish the stated goals; we saw something similar but on a much smaller scale with Basecamp.
I know a lot of my peers believe in the power to make sweeping organizational changes like that, but it's "fucking with other peoples' money". To me the whole situation seems like the setup to a bad joke.
Facebook doesn't have to do much to smear her in my eyes because she already strikes me as a ridiculous person. That said, Facebook is similarly ridiculous for hiring people with causes in direct opposition to how they do business and giving everyone in the company unfettered access to damaging internal information.
Additionally, reading the whistleblower's account and her opinions/goals struck me as an incredibly naive way of thinking...although I think she may be genuine (she's my age and I have many peers like her).
What kind of organization respects the value of complete top-down organizational change initiated by rank and file members of the company? Who would think an organization would give them that kind of power? The role that she was hired for seems destined to give her no resources to accomplish the stated goals; we saw something similar but on a much smaller scale with Basecamp.
I know a lot of my peers believe in the power to make sweeping organizational changes like that, but it's "fucking with other peoples' money". To me the whole situation seems like the setup to a bad joke.
Facebook doesn't have to do much to smear her in my eyes because she already strikes me as a ridiculous person. That said, Facebook is similarly ridiculous for hiring people with causes in direct opposition to how they do business and giving everyone in the company unfettered access to damaging internal information.
Focusing too much on the personality of the whistleblower is in a sense getting sucked into the celebrity drama hole that will always take us away from consideration of the real issue.
In fact, I think being taken away from consideration of the real issue is a major consequence of the way this is being approached: nobody can debate with the obvious truth that teenagers are getting a little too sucked in to the fake world of influencers, and right now we're not discussing it, ironically.
In fact, I think being taken away from consideration of the real issue is a major consequence of the way this is being approached: nobody can debate with the obvious truth that teenagers are getting a little too sucked in to the fake world of influencers, and right now we're not discussing it, ironically.
Again, I agree with you on this point as well and it's got my spidey-senses tingling like crazy that the whole thing is a work.
I've long been in the ban social media completely camp. It's a tool too dangerous for use by regular people.
I've long been in the ban social media completely camp. It's a tool too dangerous for use by regular people.
Well, let's not fall prey to thinking that we, in doing what we are doing right now (talking on the internet), are too much smarter or less corruptible than most of our fellow man, including those of our fellows who spend too much time doom scrolling.
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 onto 'good vs evil', 'david vs goliath' stories, and in this meta-narrative, we the public shall vanquish the evil goliath by any means necessary!
-We also have a public who at large isn't terribly interested in questioning their own biases, thinking through the higher abstract principles at play, thinking through externalities from vanquishing said evil, and in general going against the grain in these 'good vs evil' battles
-You have a news media environment who profits off such engaging meta-narratives and stories, and is more than willing to push these stories out into the public
-The companies and their employees in the news media environment also have their own in-house biases against certain 'villians' such as FB, which further incentives the spread of such stories and meta-narratives. FB has been a competitive threat to media companies. FB has also done or been accused of things which have frustrated media employees of all political persuasions.
FB is a perfect villian in this meta-narrative, regardless of any of the facts at play. They know it too.
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 onto 'good vs evil', 'david vs goliath' stories, and in this meta-narrative, we the public shall vanquish the evil goliath by any means necessary!
-We also have a public who at large isn't terribly interested in questioning their own biases, thinking through the higher abstract principles at play, thinking through externalities from vanquishing said evil, and in general going against the grain in these 'good vs evil' battles
-You have a news media environment who profits off such engaging meta-narratives and stories, and is more than willing to push these stories out into the public
-The companies and their employees in the news media environment also have their own in-house biases against certain 'villians' such as FB, which further incentives the spread of such stories and meta-narratives. FB has been a competitive threat to media companies. FB has also done or been accused of things which have frustrated media employees of all political persuasions.
FB is a perfect villian in this meta-narrative, regardless of any of the facts at play. They know it too.
There's no need for coordination when every participant independently desires a similar outcome.
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...
https://www.dailywire.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-leftis...
I hope you realize the irony of posting smears of a whistleblower to the comment section of an article that decries smearing whistleblowers.
Do you have anything to say about the substance of the revelations? Or just want to interject irrelevant BS about her personal life?
Do you have anything to say about the substance of the revelations? Or just want to interject irrelevant BS about her personal life?
> because it hurts smaller competitors more than it hurts them
Is this always true? I always thought that these companies do want to fix themselves but fixing yourself when your competition won't means that you lose. Regulation helps force everyone to fix themselves.
Is this always true? I always thought that these companies do want to fix themselves but fixing yourself when your competition won't means that you lose. Regulation helps force everyone to fix themselves.
Regulatory capture and barriers to market entry. See, for comparison, Intuit. https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-f...
I'm aware. I'm asking if this is always the case.
It’s laughable for Facebook to point at Congress now and say it’s their fault for not acting, when they know darn well that if there’s one thing Congress is incapable of doing, it’s “acting.”
The Hacker News crowd doesn't like to hear this, but it's definitely looking like the case as each day passes. If everything we know about domestic surveillance and PRISM is true, the path of least resistance would be to ratify their control. I can hear a lot of "so whats" in the audience, but this would be unprecedented. The United States would now be able to advance their control over the global internet with total impunity, and the results... are harrowing to imagine.
> 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...
A majority of Americans support regulation of big tech https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/20/56-of-ameri...
Sure, but within that majority, they support vastly different concepts of regulation.
It's like asking "do you think the government should do something about abortion?" Banning it and enshrining it as a right are both "doing something", but the two groups are unlikely to see themselves as agreeing with each other.
It's like asking "do you think the government should do something about abortion?" Banning it and enshrining it as a right are both "doing something", but the two groups are unlikely to see themselves as agreeing with each other.
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 Facebook right after the New York Times published an article titled "Facebook Is Weaker Than We Knew." (This could honestly just be atrocious luck and an incredible coincidence.)
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. Perhaps she's simply a natural, but I sense she received some coaching and preparation beforehand. Combine that with how well she is being received by senators from both parties and you start to wonder just how much of this was orchestrated in advance.
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 Facebook right after the New York Times published an article titled "Facebook Is Weaker Than We Knew." (This could honestly just be atrocious luck and an incredible coincidence.)
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. Perhaps she's simply a natural, but I sense she received some coaching and preparation beforehand. Combine that with how well she is being received by senators from both parties and you start to wonder just how much of this was orchestrated in advance.
"This person seems too credible, thus they must not be credible" is a hell of a take.
> Perhaps she's simply a natural, but I sense she received some coaching and preparation beforehand.
So?
Do you think Zuckerberg doesn't get coaching and preparation before his hearing appearances?
So?
Do you think Zuckerberg doesn't get coaching and preparation before his hearing appearances?
I understand why Zuckerberg had coaching and preparation before his appearance - because he has the backing of a megacorporation.
It's interesting to speculate on who is supporting the FB whistleblower's campaign.
It's interesting to speculate on who is supporting the FB whistleblower's campaign.
Any high-profile whistleblower is going to have a legal team supporting them with hearing prep, especially if they're fairly well off financially.
I mean it's pretty obvious why they're targeting Facebook and not the other big Internet companies.
Facebook is the only one still allowing far-right speech on their platform. That is why the Democrats are going after them.
Facebook is the only one still allowing far-right speech on their platform. That is why the Democrats are going after them.
> 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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
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?"
>"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?"
> 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)?"
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)?"
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.
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.
I've been trying to couch my comments around the fact that I am only talking about my gut-feelings. I don't have the means to deliver on the burden of proof because I completely lack the resources to investigate. Heck, even if my suspicions are actually correct, how in the world would I be able to uncover that? When something feels fishy, what else can you do?
I just have suspicions because everything just seems too perfect. I would expect a whistleblower to be some Average Joe/Jane, not some wunderkind with an amazing background and unflappable presentation. I would expect a lot more stuttering and sweating - Edward Snowden was jittery during his first several interviews and his body language just screamed uncertainty about the future.
But I digress. Just because something feels wrong doesn't mean it really is. Could just be a false-positive.
I just have suspicions because everything just seems too perfect. I would expect a whistleblower to be some Average Joe/Jane, not some wunderkind with an amazing background and unflappable presentation. I would expect a lot more stuttering and sweating - Edward Snowden was jittery during his first several interviews and his body language just screamed uncertainty about the future.
But I digress. Just because something feels wrong doesn't mean it really is. Could just be a false-positive.
There's no reason to believe a whistleblower would be an average Joe, let alone that even an average Joe would be an inarticulate mess.
And had she been, that'd just be used as proof she was a plant too, because "a professional wouldn't sound like that."
And had she been, that'd just be used as proof she was a plant too, because "a professional wouldn't sound like that."
Career big tech product manager, Harvard MBA, knowing she was going to be testifying to congress, the press, and maybe a jury? Of course she's prepared, it would be really surprising if she wasn't.
What's your source on her wealth? I'm only finding second hand sources stating up to 5 million...
There is no source because nobody under the C-level is worth anywhere close to that much.
She's one of the cofounders of Hinge, which was acquired by Match Group.
What are the chances Hinge made it to acquisition without giving shares to employees and investors?
Wiki says they nearly went bankrupt just before a funding round. Even Zuckerberg only owned 28% of Facebook at IPO.
Wiki says they nearly went bankrupt just before a funding round. Even Zuckerberg only owned 28% of Facebook at IPO.
Oh I'm not saying she has a billion. Odds are she is quite wealthy though.
maybe 1B is family wealth rather than personal wealth?
I believe they searched "frances haugen net worth" and then copied from this extremely reputable source: https://primalinformation.com/frances-haugen-wiki-net-worth/
She founded Hinge that was bought by Match Group for $2 billion.
Update: There is no verifiable information about her stake in the company.
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.
[deleted]
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.
It's based on her co-founding Hinge, which apparently is now worth $2b. Hinge had sold 100% of shares by 2019, so she might have done well for herself, but definitely not 50% of current valuation.
It's called a tipping point. Previous critics made similar denunciations, but most people and even the media just shrugged and pretended nothing bad was happening. It takes time for society to acknowledge inconvenient truths. Plus, here, Haugen provided a wealth of documentation.
There are very few billionaires. Who "estimated" this? Based on what?
This is nonsense.
She's receiving a large press and Congressional focus because she's testifying about harm to children.
Not political censorship, perceived bias, or internal politics.
It's a cleaner story.
Greenwald, like all politicians, is twisting the story to meet his narrative. He doesn't "nail it". He's just regurgitating his preferred talking point, and ignoring her actual testimony.
She's receiving a large press and Congressional focus because she's testifying about harm to children.
Not political censorship, perceived bias, or internal politics.
It's a cleaner story.
Greenwald, like all politicians, is twisting the story to meet his narrative. He doesn't "nail it". He's just regurgitating his preferred talking point, and ignoring her actual testimony.
[deleted]
[deleted]
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.
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??
Where does it mention her character??
Where does it address "the subject matter in question"?
She leaked 18k documents. How does the number of direct reports she supervised affect their veracity?
She leaked 18k documents. How does the number of direct reports she supervised affect their veracity?
They are addressing the testimony provided, not the documents which have not been provided.
Generally after hacking a company, the documents are provided in a ZIP for everyone to download. Information wants to be free, but we are only being provided with her summary of the documents rather than the evidence itself.
Generally after hacking a company, the documents are provided in a ZIP for everyone to download. Information wants to be free, but we are only being provided with her summary of the documents rather than the evidence itself.
> They are addressing the testimony provided…
How? Where?
How? Where?
Facebook's "defense" is not a defense at all, but a misdirection.
While this article uses some pretty sensational language, it does accurately describe Facebook's response to Haugen's revelations.
While this article uses some pretty sensational language, it does accurately describe Facebook's response to Haugen's revelations.
The point the author is making is that the rebuttal has very little substance. The signal to noise ratio is low.
Facebook's defense is like if someone accuses me of stealing something from a store and then I say the accuser has no security experience and was only in the store for 10 minutes.
- 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 acting like stating these is some sort of reprehensible smear.