[pwdisswordfish2]

"Why does FB even have employee medical information and personal finanacial records?"

You are assuming that they have this information. However their argument is that the search terms "could" retrieve such documents. There is nothing here that confirms they possess these purportedly irrelevant documents that would be produced given the current search terms.

Usually lawyers will redact personal, sensitive information before releasing the documents. In the US, some courts make this an obligation. Also, usually there are some search operators to limit the results of the search to usage of the terms only in certain contexts, e.g., like the ones used in Lexis and Westlaw.

It is a new level of irony, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance to see an unregulated, privacy-destroying tech company whose core business requires ingesting personal information from hundreds of millions of people at an unprecedented scale try to argue that EU regulators, who are probably limited by statute in what they are authorised to do with the information they receive, should not have access to information for the purposes of investigating Facebook's activities.

[op03]

It's not a new level.

Cognitive dissonance is an essential requirement to work in Wall St, the MIL complex, Exxon, big tobacco, the gambling industry etc etc. They all have their own stories about how it's okay to exploit weakness in people.

They all reach a stage where to survive they cannot break with their stories. Cognitive dissonance is par for the course.

Facebook by adding the Like button to the Internet is basically giving out free dopamine in exchange for attention that they exchange for $$$. It's a modern legal unregulated drug peddling empire.

And all empires collapse because of their cognitive dissonance.

[kryogen1c]

> Cognitive dissonance is an essential requirement to work in

oh, boo. this is a sophomoric examination that does not do justice to the subject being critiqued.

cognitive dissonance has become a buzzword and its incorrect usage is exemplified here. those people aren't struggling with a value conflict, they just have different values than you do.

the path to togetherness, thoughtfull discussion, and mind-changing lies with honest recognition and good-faith debate, not name-calling.

[zaro]

> cognitive dissonance has become a buzzword and its incorrect usage is exemplified here. those people aren't struggling with a value conflict, they just have different values than you do

But maybe, just maybe, their values are incompatible with the values that build up a society. And here is where the cognitive dissonance starts.

> the path to togetherness, thoughtfull discussion, and mind-changing lies with honest recognition and good-faith debate, not name-calling.

That only works when all sides want this. I think it's pretty onbivous that any large corporation, doesn't want this kind of discussion. It mean admitting them doing a lot of cr*p in the name of profit.

[yuliyp]

Cognitive dissonance is a single person holding two contradictory views at once. A person holding views that contradict yours is not cognitive dissonance. "The values that build up a society" are not a universal truth.

[fogetti]

That's actually incorrect. Cognitive dissonance means that someone's behavior, attitude or thoughts, beliefs are inconsistent. Or in other words someone participates in an action that goes against his beliefs, ideas, values. Which is exactly what the grandparent post refers to:

> They all have their own stories about how it's okay to exploit weakness in people.

This is definitely inconsistent and in contrast with almost all the above mentioned entities' mission statement and their corporate values.

[fogetti]

In other words, beside my previous comment you missed the part of the discussion where we concluded (see the grandparent's post again) that both the value and the behavior originates from the same source.

This has nothing to do with an external third person's view.

[antibuddy]

You could argue in both directions actually, since they are part of society and they likely don't want to be held to the same standard as they treat their users. (still not necessarily a contradictory view, but it gets bendy)

However in general I do find cognitive dissonance badly used, since the experience of cognitive dissonance is usually the positive part, since you notice a problem in your view point. The resolution on the other hand ... So it would be better to just say contradiction and then it's obvious that one has to give a better explanation of it.

[krageon]

There's no need to have a good-faith debate with someone who has decided that my privacy is worth less than their salary. Those people should be punished. They can have good-faith debates with each other during their mandatory community service or what have you. That way they only waste each others' time.

[082349872349872]

Would you agree that a US Senator doubling down[1] that 'having slavery was a necessary evil[2] in order to get rid of it[3]' is correct usage of cognitive dissonance? How does it differ from the incorrect usage?

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53550882

[2] I agree with him that it had been a necessary evil to form the original union. I disagree both that formation of that union was necessary, and that slave states joined the union with the intention of abolition.

[3] Luckily, like this senator, the confederate states and contemporary writers said why they seceded. Deepfakes are not an issue when people are willing to go "on the record" with their intent and state of mind.

====

As to "different values", I guess I can come up with some for the examples given above:

Exxon - We need oil profit now to fund later development of our green acquisitions

Wall St - Our arbitrages make the system more efficient for everyone else

the MIL complex - Our products only kill and maim baddies. Besides, we build them so we don't have to use them.

the gambling industry - If we were outlawed only criminals (and uncovered derivatives traders?) would gamble. Besides, people have a sure loss when they pay for other forms of entertainment. And we pay for cultural projects legislators don't want in their budgets!

big tobacco - There is controversy over long term costs, but in the short term smoking clearly demonstrates human mastery over fire. (besides, how are workers supposed to bond, and pace themselves, without the smoke break?)

However, the only clearly non-dissonant one I can come up with is "anything people pay me to do is by definition good."

[brmgb]

> the MIL complex - Our products only kill and maim baddies. Besides, we build them so we don't have to use them.

Approximately no one thinks that in the military industrial complex. People are not dumb. They know what they are building. It's actually one of the least hypocritical industry I worked in.

I left because I was feeling uneasy about the foreign countries we were selling to and don't believe in the foreign policy of our last few governments. Still I am not loosing sleep about my contribution to my country military relevance.

[082349872349872]

Thanks. I'll gladly edit if you can provide me with a better justification? (to me, "contributing to my country's military relevance" would fall under "we build them so we don't have to use them," but I'm obviously the wrong person to be writing these.)

[brmgb]

> we build them so we don't have to use them

No, we build them so that we are credible when we threaten, can riposte if we are attacked, are less tempting as a bullying target and win when we wage wars (which we sadly still very much do even if it's mostly in support of allied countries nowadays).

I mean, I am far from fully Clausewitzian but force remains part of the way international relationships work.

[fogetti]

Can you point me to the discussion where I can confirm that this has become a buzzword?

[Mary-Jane]

You miss the point. Many people that work at tobacco companies probably like to smoke!

[fogetti]

You miss the point actually. The poster made a statement without any proof. It's a classic logical fallacy.

And your example...? Proves what exactly? It's the exact opposite of a cognitive dissonance. The behavior is consistent with the company values.

But the discussion point is that the company behavior is most of the time inconsistent with the company values. E.g. Exxon value is env friendly energy <-> Exxon true behavior is causing env disaster

[buran77]

There's a bit of a problem here because cognitive dissonance is harder to apply to companies, they are not a single mind even if they almost act like it. I doubt the people under the company's umbrella hold the 2 ideas in their head concurrently, they just put aside any moral aspect and let "the company" bear this moral weight, they just have a job to do regardless of personal preference.

Perhaps hypocrisy would be a better term to describe them. They'll say something is bad but they'll do the very same thing depending on how this suits their agenda.

[DSingularity]

How do you not see the lack of coherence in their philosophy?

When it comes to data on Facebook employees — how dare the people request access to such private materials!?

When it comes to data on the worlds people, Facebook is willing to sell it to anybody. Even if the data is used aid in rigging elections.

[mellow2020]

> they just have different values than you do.

Name them.

[skinnymuch]

Are people on HN, reddit, et al, who have criticisms over vast numbers of people, mostly cogs, but all seem to be working jobs at companies that don’t do much harm, if any?

It appears as if at some level all of us need to have some level of cognitive dissonance to not see ourselves as bad people. I know there are levels to how bad things can be. I’m just saying no one is a saint.

[theelous3]

Aye, cognitive distancing would be more accurate, though I don't really know what the actual term that applies here is. I generally just refer to it as simply lacking morals, be it in the form of immorality or deep ignorance, neither of which are excusable.

[gwd]

> Cognitive dissonance is an essential requirement

I think the correct word here is "doublethink". Cognitive dissonance implies experiencing an unpleasant sensation from the contradiction, which leads people to try resolve the dissonance. Doublethink implies fully accepting two contradictory notions at once without any unpleasant sensation.

[DSingularity]

What can we say about the legions of engineers and scientists that work for these companies?

[cryptica]

Either they're desperate or they're immoral.

If you're not poor, then it's immoral to work in such company.

If I had to choose between working for a monopolistic corporation or a mafia, I think I'd rather join the mafia because I can't stand hypocrisy. At least they're honest about what they're going to do to you if you don't pay them the protection money and they're not pretending to be the good guys. A mafia has a clear, well defined moral code with clear boundaries which limit the harm they do; also unlike corporate entities, the members of mafias take risks upon themselves.

[cycomanic]

>You are assuming that they have this information. However their argument is that the search terms "could" retrieve such documents. There is nothing here that confirms they possess these purportedly irrelevant documents that would be produced given the current search terms.

Having the documents is a necessary condition to them being found (or in other words if they don't have the documents they can not be found), so I would hope making such an argument without actually having any documents containing this information would get them a stern talking to by the judge. Then again law often works very different to what we laypeople assume.

[cryptica]

>> You are assuming that they have this information.

Isn't that the entire premise of the article? What you're suggesting here is that Facebook doesn't hold any data until the government asks for it, then that data magically appears on its servers and suddenly it needs to be protected from big bad government. How convenient.

[LudwigNagasena]

The EU Commission is a powerful barely accountable entity. It may be hypocritical for FB to defend privacy but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are wrong.

[matthewheath]

In what way is it "barely accountable"? It's appointed by Member States directly through the European Council (the heads of each Member State who meet quarterly to discuss the EU), who propose nominations, and then confirmed by the MEPs from each Member State directly elected by their voters.

So, from two directly accountable bodies: the heads of state of each country, and then directly elected MEPs. If EU voters don't like their Commission, they can always vote in new MEPs and new governments to represent them on the Council.

There are many arguable democratic deficits within the EU, but isn't one of them in my opinion.

[raxxorrax]

Because "in practice" voters are extremely far removed from the decision process. And it isn't just a problem of scale.

It is like the US inverted. The voters don't vote the president directly, but the Trump vs Biden debate makes clear how things are done "in practice".

[cycomanic]

Well they are still orders of magnitude more accountable than facebook, that's the irony.