6 ms·

I never understood why firing is seen as sufficient punishment for bad actors inside a company. There are so many situations where the payoff is still much high

I never understood why firing is seen as sufficient punishment for bad actors inside a company. There are so many situations where the payoff is still much higher even if you get fired.

stickfigure 7y ago
What more do you want? Criminal prosecution for violating Facebook's internal policy?
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  How about more preventive measures rather than just reactionary ones? Maybe stronger security measures that make it much harder if not physically impossible for one person to do much damage in the first place? As for prosecution (whether civil or criminal) - I don't know, if there's a law that can enforce it, should that not be on the table? And if there isn't, then perhaps there should be?
- ardit33 7y ago
  Yes. For taking money/profiting. They didn't do it just it by 'mistake', or by incompetence. How do you think mafia operates in Italy? They infiltrate their solders in every part of the government (especially local government), or even private companies where they have interests. If they can't, then they bribe them.
  - draw_down 7y ago
    What exactly would the crime be, here? If you really want this, think it all the way out.
    - gpm 7y ago
      Using existing laws: In general, fraud against the company. In this specific case, you might be able to throw in conspiracy to violate the CFAA. Using new laws: I would be perfectly happy to have a "corporate espionage/bribery" law that made it criminal to accept money personally to change your behavior as an agent of a company. I would prefer it if that law only applied when you and the company opted into it via a contract to minimize disruption to any existing schemes where that is considered acceptable behavior.
      - krageon 7y ago
        Until of course being hired by competition is seen as "corporate espionage" and you've suddenly made a noncompete something that is built in to every employment. Somehow we've succeeded in making the US even more dystopic.
        gpm 7y ago
        The "as an agent of a company" part is intended to exclude that. Even if it wasn't, that just means when drafting the law basic care needs to be taken. The same could be said for practically every law.
        krageon 7y ago
        > when drafting the law basic care needs to be taken You are right, and this was more or less my point. Drafting a law is hard work - but the kind of handwaving armchair advice that you often see to "just make a law for this" does not recognise that it is very hard to do so. It's even harder to do it in a way that is right for everyone and with the political landscape being the way it is and lobbying working the way it does it's far from a foregone conclusion that such an effort will yield the desired result.
- onion2k 7y ago
  I want a law that would make Facebook liable for the actions of their staff. The goal of such a law would push the company to implement measures to make individual bad actors have very little power to do bad things. In this case, simply having a requirement that several independent people (maybe in different offices) review a case before unbanning an account wouldn't be completely unreasonable.
  - mliker 7y ago
    That law would need to be applicable to all companies - Walmart, Target, Visa, etc.
    - wcip 7y ago
      Seems like repealing section 203 in connection to paid advertisement would be sufficient, if Facebook publishes a advertisement that defrauds users and profits from it they can also share a portion of the blame.
    - sharkjacobs 7y ago
      this law is sounding better and better
    - naniwaduni 7y ago
      Some would call that a feature, not a bug. (Yes, yes, it'd be hard to pass, but)
  - harrisonjackson 7y ago
    It seems like every couple of weeks we see a founder or professional locked out of their accounts on some platform they depend on to make a living. Until that problem is solved I don't think we want to make it harder than it is to unban someone. Likely the bad actors would still find a way around it, too. What's a little criminal collusion amongst coworkers for profit.
    - olliej 7y ago
      I mean there’s a real problem in that many people are arranging their livelihoods around single platforms. As much as I hate crowder for example, he ensured that most of his income comes from advertising his own store and products, so being demonetized for repeatedly violating YT policies didn’t actually cost him much.
- nitwit005 7y ago
  It sounds like commercial bribery, which is illegal in most states. Sometimes the federal mail and wire fraud statues are also used to prosecute such things.
- zik 7y ago
  Accepting bribes is illegal.
  - anticensor 7y ago
    Facebook is not a public utility.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Both the accusation and defence are weak. What appears to have happened at Facebook wasn't bribery, but potentially fraud, misrepresentation, or a form of rebate. And whilst Facebook may not be a notional public utility, its role and behaviour (as well as intentions) make it all but that.
- ransom1538 7y ago
  "What more do you want? Criminal prosecution for violating Facebook's internal policy?" Reminds me of this Parks and Rec! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiyfwZVAzGw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiyfwZVAzGw
- choonway 7y ago
  require facebook to report bribery and leave it to the AG to file charges.
- Koremat6666 7y ago
  That individual's career is ruined and he or she will be lucky to get any well paying job in future. Not to mention the shame the person will fill. Now if it was $1M bribe and I was on h1b visa I am fine. Otherwise it is losing deal.
asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
It shouldn't be, but it's not Facebook's job to prosecute criminal bribery and embezzlement charges. They should and probably would refer the employee to the authorities, but that's the full extent they can go.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> I never understood why firing is seen as sufficient punishment for bad actors inside a company. It's seen as sufficient, often, because: (1) even if a civil cause of action is available, the cost of litigation far exceeds any plausible benefit to the company, and (2) The company can't direct criminal prosecution and the high bar of proof and other competing prosecutorial priorities mean even if the conduct the company believes occurred which justified the firing would also be criminal, it often won't meet the criteria a public productor will apply before prosecuting. > There are so many situations where the payoff is still much higher even if you get fired. Maybe, but that doesn't mean that there is a correction to that circumstance which doesn't itself have social costs that outweigh it's utility.
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  aka you're blackballed by other orgs or seen as a liability. "if this guy already was taking bribes, why should we give him access to critical system $SYSTEM when he may sell that knowledge to others?"

I never understood why firing is seen as sufficient punishment for bad actors inside a company. There are so many situations where the payoff is still much higher even if you get fired.

stickfigure 7y ago

What more do you want? Criminal prosecution for violating Facebook's internal policy?

mehrdadn 7y ago
How about more preventive measures rather than just reactionary ones? Maybe stronger security measures that make it much harder if not physically impossible for one person to do much damage in the first place? As for prosecution (whether civil or criminal) - I don't know, if there's a law that can enforce it, should that not be on the table? And if there isn't, then perhaps there should be?
ardit33 7y ago
Yes. For taking money/profiting. They didn't do it just it by 'mistake', or by incompetence. How do you think mafia operates in Italy? They infiltrate their solders in every part of the government (especially local government), or even private companies where they have interests. If they can't, then they bribe them.
- draw_down 7y ago
  What exactly would the crime be, here? If you really want this, think it all the way out.
  - gpm 7y ago
    Using existing laws: In general, fraud against the company. In this specific case, you might be able to throw in conspiracy to violate the CFAA. Using new laws: I would be perfectly happy to have a "corporate espionage/bribery" law that made it criminal to accept money personally to change your behavior as an agent of a company. I would prefer it if that law only applied when you and the company opted into it via a contract to minimize disruption to any existing schemes where that is considered acceptable behavior.
    - krageon 7y ago
      Until of course being hired by competition is seen as "corporate espionage" and you've suddenly made a noncompete something that is built in to every employment. Somehow we've succeeded in making the US even more dystopic.
      - gpm 7y ago
        The "as an agent of a company" part is intended to exclude that. Even if it wasn't, that just means when drafting the law basic care needs to be taken. The same could be said for practically every law.
        krageon 7y ago
        > when drafting the law basic care needs to be taken You are right, and this was more or less my point. Drafting a law is hard work - but the kind of handwaving armchair advice that you often see to "just make a law for this" does not recognise that it is very hard to do so. It's even harder to do it in a way that is right for everyone and with the political landscape being the way it is and lobbying working the way it does it's far from a foregone conclusion that such an effort will yield the desired result.
onion2k 7y ago
I want a law that would make Facebook liable for the actions of their staff. The goal of such a law would push the company to implement measures to make individual bad actors have very little power to do bad things. In this case, simply having a requirement that several independent people (maybe in different offices) review a case before unbanning an account wouldn't be completely unreasonable.
- mliker 7y ago
  That law would need to be applicable to all companies - Walmart, Target, Visa, etc.
  - wcip 7y ago
    Seems like repealing section 203 in connection to paid advertisement would be sufficient, if Facebook publishes a advertisement that defrauds users and profits from it they can also share a portion of the blame.
  - sharkjacobs 7y ago
    this law is sounding better and better
  - naniwaduni 7y ago
    Some would call that a feature, not a bug. (Yes, yes, it'd be hard to pass, but)
- harrisonjackson 7y ago
  It seems like every couple of weeks we see a founder or professional locked out of their accounts on some platform they depend on to make a living. Until that problem is solved I don't think we want to make it harder than it is to unban someone. Likely the bad actors would still find a way around it, too. What's a little criminal collusion amongst coworkers for profit.
  - olliej 7y ago
    I mean there’s a real problem in that many people are arranging their livelihoods around single platforms. As much as I hate crowder for example, he ensured that most of his income comes from advertising his own store and products, so being demonetized for repeatedly violating YT policies didn’t actually cost him much.
nitwit005 7y ago
It sounds like commercial bribery, which is illegal in most states. Sometimes the federal mail and wire fraud statues are also used to prosecute such things.
zik 7y ago
Accepting bribes is illegal.
- anticensor 7y ago
  Facebook is not a public utility.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Both the accusation and defence are weak. What appears to have happened at Facebook wasn't bribery, but potentially fraud, misrepresentation, or a form of rebate. And whilst Facebook may not be a notional public utility, its role and behaviour (as well as intentions) make it all but that.
ransom1538 7y ago
"What more do you want? Criminal prosecution for violating Facebook's internal policy?" Reminds me of this Parks and Rec! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiyfwZVAzGw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiyfwZVAzGw
choonway 7y ago
require facebook to report bribery and leave it to the AG to file charges.
Koremat6666 7y ago
That individual's career is ruined and he or she will be lucky to get any well paying job in future. Not to mention the shame the person will fill. Now if it was $1M bribe and I was on h1b visa I am fine. Otherwise it is losing deal.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

It shouldn't be, but it's not Facebook's job to prosecute criminal bribery and embezzlement charges. They should and probably would refer the employee to the authorities, but that's the full extent they can go.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> I never understood why firing is seen as sufficient punishment for bad actors inside a company. It's seen as sufficient, often, because: (1) even if a civil cause of action is available, the cost of litigation far exceeds any plausible benefit to the company, and (2) The company can't direct criminal prosecution and the high bar of proof and other competing prosecutorial priorities mean even if the conduct the company believes occurred which justified the firing would also be criminal, it often won't meet the criteria a public productor will apply before prosecuting. > There are so many situations where the payoff is still much higher even if you get fired. Maybe, but that doesn't mean that there is a correction to that circumstance which doesn't itself have social costs that outweigh it's utility.

blaser-waffle 7y ago
aka you're blackballed by other orgs or seen as a liability. "if this guy already was taking bribes, why should we give him access to critical system $SYSTEM when he may sell that knowledge to others?"