[mnls]

It's unacceptable that Meta did something like this.

But this doesn’t change the fact that she shouldn’t share anything personal on social media. Consider social media the new "streets". A street with dim lights or an alley that you go at 3am and shout something or showing your images/videos to strangers there. This is exactly what you should keep in mind before you share anything personal on social media.

And either way, who wants to be an unpaid Meta employee that provides any kind of content for free?

[tzs]

Even if you don't care much about your own privacy, sharing too much or too widely can lead to a loss of privacy for everyone.

Much of privacy law is based on a "reasonable" expectation of privacy. What counts as "reasonable" can change depending on what people in general believe it to be.

Here's an essay [1] by an appeals court judge from 2012 for some more on this.

[1] https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox-the...

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I'll lay odds that the Meta employee that made the decision to do this, has an HN account. I notice how quickly this story is descending through the pages. It's already off the front page.

[gruez]

>I notice how quickly this story is descending through the pages. It's already off the front page.

HN doesn't even have a downvote button.

[Jtsummers]

HN does have flagging for submissions which can downrank them, and this submission is marked as [flagged] so that's probably what happened here.

[graemep]

Yes. I was wondering why it is flagged though.

[randycupertino]

Generally when I post something unflattering about Tesla, Meta or Airbnb it gets flagged. Just a pattern I've noticed. The Tesla ones get flagged the fastest!

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I know.

It’s fascinating to see which stories take a dive.

[gruez]

So you don't know why exactly this story was "taking a dive", but regardless you're going to assume the Meta employee responsible for the feature has an HN account and is somehow causing it?

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Huh?

Way to interpolate. Kudos to your reach! I just was pointing out that it's likely that the employee responsible was here. The diving is highly unlikely to be triggered by a single employee (unless it was that "employee").

No, but if it was flagged, it's possible that it was by Meta employees. I can't see why it would be flagged, otherwise. I'll bet there's enough for a good flash mob, like the Elon stans that always flag down stories critical of him.

I'll bet they will also be flagging my comment.

It's nice to be loved...

[LexiMax]

This is precisely why I always use the active front page.

https://news.ycombinator.com/active

It is the answer to the question. "What stories do Hacker News users not want me to see?"

[gruez]

>Way to interpolate. Kudos to your reach! I just was pointing out that it's likely that the employee responsible was here. The diving is highly unlikely to be triggered by a single employee (unless it was that "employee").

Sorry, I thought you were the OP, which made the claim of

>Way to interpolate. Kudos to your reach! I just was pointing out that it's likely that the employee responsible was here. The diving is highly unlikely to be triggered by a single employee (unless it was that "employee").

[ryandrake]

It's always so wild to see the denial of what is almost certainly going on. "Article critical of tech company X or tech celebrity Y gets quickly buried in flags" is a tale as old as time here. It is not a huge leap of faith to suppose that the flagging activity often comes from employees or fans who have an interest in burying criticism. But if you mention it, people act as though you are talking crazy. That Meta employees, with a strong incentive to see Meta succeed, would NEVER stoop to flagging an article critical of Meta or demonstrating Meta's wrongdoing. My goodness! How could one even imagine that could happen??

Technically, no we don't know this is going on. Only HN's admins can know this. But come on...

[senordevnyc]

I flagged it, and I've never worked at Meta. I flagged it because:

1. I find her description of what happened here ("an AI impersonated me!!") to be inaccurate and misleading.

2. I find her blatantly misandrist victimhood stance to be disgusting.

[jmye]

Agree with both - it's a shitty thing for the company to do.

But I do not understand why someone who's so passionate about the issues raised in the post would do something as silly as post this on a Meta-owned property at all. The end result is blindingly obvious, and anyone who doesn't expect exactly this is living in a bizarre fantasy-world, where social media (and moreso Meta-owned social media) isn't inherently evil and run/maintained by evil people (and yes, I understand the irony).