[cpr]

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-...

[whatshisface]

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.

[busterarm]

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.

[whatshisface]

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.

[busterarm]

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.

[whatshisface]

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.

[FFRefresh]

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.

[whatshisface]

There's no need for coordination when every participant independently desires a similar outcome.

[xqcgrek2]

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...

[mthoms]

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?

[smoldesu]

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.

[SquishyPanda23]

> 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...

[ceejayoz]

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.

[Hokusai]

> 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.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

> 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.

[cratermoon]

Regulatory capture and barriers to market entry. See, for comparison, Intuit. https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-f...

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

I'm aware. I'm asking if this is always the case.

[kwertyoowiyop]

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.”

[shadilay]

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.

[BitwiseFool]

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.

[ihasdofijqwer]

> 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

[BitwiseFool]

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?"

[ceejayoz]

> 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)?"

[ihasdofijqwer]

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.

[BitwiseFool]

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.

[etchalon]

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."

[ceejayoz]

> 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?

[initplus]

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.

[ceejayoz]

Any high-profile whistleblower is going to have a legal team supporting them with hearing prep, especially if they're fairly well off financially.

[hedgehog]

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.

[etchalon]

"This person seems too credible, thus they must not be credible" is a hell of a take.

[keewee7]

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.

[orzig]

Citation majorly needed on "1B estimated"

[jcomis]

They are a cofounder of the dating app "Hinge". No idea where the "1B estimated" comes from at all however.

[leahbarton]

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

[saulpw]

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.

[keewee7]

She founded Hinge that was bought by Match Group for $2 billion.

Update: There is no verifiable information about her stake in the company.

[DeRock]

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.

[gnicholas]

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.

[burkaman]

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.

[dntrkv]

There is no source because nobody under the C-level is worth anywhere close to that much.

[busterarm]

She's one of the cofounders of Hinge, which was acquired by Match Group.

[ceejayoz]

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.

[busterarm]

Oh I'm not saying she has a billion. Odds are she is quite wealthy though.

[gruez]

maybe 1B is family wealth rather than personal wealth?

[burkaman]

I believe they searched "frances haugen net worth" and then copied from this extremely reputable source: https://primalinformation.com/frances-haugen-wiki-net-worth/

[buitreVirtual]

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.

[AlbertCory]

There are very few billionaires. Who "estimated" this? Based on what?

[etchalon]

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.