Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by abrahamepton 1698 days ago
I don’t understand why it matters what Haugen believes - whether in “no encryption” or space fairies or whatever - instead of what she proved, which is the profoundly amoral and dishonest nature of the company.
2 comments

It matters because she's using the one to promote the other.

We should be able to say that the leaks themselves are good, but also that they are making a transparent political play for control over Facebook (more than reining in their amorality and dishonesty).

Whistleblowers do not usually have the support of a top tier lobbying firm (Bryson Gillette) paid for by a rival tech billionaire (Pierre Omidyar). I say take the leaks, but say no thanks to the "advice" it comes with.

She isn’t just a neutral presenter of data, she is a spokesperson and advocate. She is positioning herself to be a decision maker, or help decision makers.
Isn’t a whistleblower by definition not neutral? I’m not even sure what a neutral whistleblower would look like.

Should her motivations be questioned? Absolutely! But if you don’t like her stance, just say so instead labelling her an “activist” or “advocate” like there’s something inherently bad about those things.

I didn't intent to imply anything bad about being labeled an activist or an advocate. Whistleblower carries something of a neutral veneer. A whistleblower are often seen as exposing something objectively wrong, a broken law or crime. That's not really what is happening here (though it wouldn't be surprising to see laws have been broken). The main thrust here is Facebook is bad for society, which, IMO is more activism than whistleblowing. No objective answer here! Just how I read the nuance of the language.