4 ms·
The interesting part about that to me is that they don't regard the fleecing-children part to be "giant harm." I.e., the court has records that are even more d
by isomorphic 8y ago
The interesting part about that to me is that they don't regard the fleecing-children part to be "giant harm." I.e., the court has records that are even more damaging to Facebook.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y agoThat's really troubling. But by now several people have access to this information anyway, so it's just a question of time before we learn what it was.
- detaro 8y agoOr they think in that case, the public benefit outweighs the damage to Facebook.
- pc86 8y agoThis is much more likely IMO. The public benefit of different pieces of information can vary greatly, with most probably approaching zero. Even if the child-fleecing stuff was the most harmful of anything to FB, it's still reasonable that other things are not beneficial enough to release even if they likely are not as damaging.