[koboll]

Okay, so Facebook has said she

- worked there for less than two years and had no direct reports

- never attended some sort of key meeting

- did not work on the subject matter in question

...and therefore, she lacks context which undermines some of her claims.

Which of those is a matter of character, or a "disgusting" attack? They might be wrong, or they might be right but bringing up irrelevancies, but the writer is acting like stating these is some sort of reprehensible smear.

[cratermoon]

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.

[true_religion]

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.

[cratermoon]

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

[Barrin92]

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.

[caminante]

>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.

[bleachedsleet]

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.

[caminante]

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.

[ipaddr]

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.

[glitchc]

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.

[_3u10]

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.

[p49k]

She shared them with the SEC, Congress and the WSJ. Ostensibly she doesn’t have the resources to redact tens of thousands of documents herself.

[adolph]

> NBC news has only shared 7000 pages

Where are they shared?

[Barrin92]

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?

[cirgue]

How are they relevant?

[koboll]

>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".

[klelatti]

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.

[lostmsu]

That's assuming this is their only "defense". Was it though?

[scotuswroteus]

YES. They vaguely said they disagree with her characterization. This was the only defense. q

[fireball_blaze]

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

[iammisc]

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.

[mbesto]

> 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.

[iammisc]

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.

[ceejayoz]

> 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...

[iammisc]

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.

[alasdair_]

> 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.)

[iammisc]

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.

[kurikuri]

>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?

[scotuswroteus]

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?

[tapatio]

I recommend you study logical fallacies.

[dnissley]

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...