6 ms·

"Why does FB even have employee medical information and personal finanacial records?" You are assuming that they have this information. However their argument

"Why does FB even have employee medical information and personal finanacial records?" You are assuming that they have this information. However their argument is that the search terms "could" retrieve such documents. There is nothing here that confirms they possess these purportedly irrelevant documents that would be produced given the current search terms. Usually lawyers will redact personal, sensitive information before releasing the documents. In the US, some courts make this an obligation. Also, usually there are some search operators to limit the results of the search to usage of the terms only in certain contexts, e.g., like the ones used in Lexis and Westlaw. It is a new level of irony, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance to see an unregulated, privacy-destroying tech company whose core business requires ingesting personal information from hundreds of millions of people at an unprecedented scale try to argue that EU regulators, who are probably limited by statute in what they are authorised to do with the information they receive, should not have access to information for the purposes of investigating Facebook's activities.

op03 6y ago
It's not a new level. Cognitive dissonance is an essential requirement to work in Wall St, the MIL complex, Exxon, big tobacco, the gambling industry etc etc. They all have their own stories about how it's okay to exploit weakness in people. They all reach a stage where to survive they cannot break with their stories. Cognitive dissonance is par for the course. Facebook by adding the Like button to the Internet is basically giving out free dopamine in exchange for attention that they exchange for $$$. It's a modern legal unregulated drug peddling empire. And all empires collapse because of their cognitive dissonance.
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  > Cognitive dissonance is an essential requirement to work in oh, boo. this is a sophomoric examination that does not do justice to the subject being critiqued. cognitive dissonance has become a buzzword and its incorrect usage is exemplified here. those people aren't struggling with a value conflict, they just have different values than you do. the path to togetherness, thoughtfull discussion, and mind-changing lies with honest recognition and good-faith debate, not name-calling.
  - fogetti 6y ago
    Can you point me to the discussion where I can confirm that this has become a buzzword?
    - Mary-Jane 6y ago
      You miss the point. Many people that work at tobacco companies probably like to smoke!
      - fogetti 6y ago
        You miss the point actually. The poster made a statement without any proof. It's a classic logical fallacy. And your example...? Proves what exactly? It's the exact opposite of a cognitive dissonance. The behavior is consistent with the company values. But the discussion point is that the company behavior is most of the time inconsistent with the company values. E.g. Exxon value is env friendly energy <-> Exxon true behavior is causing env disaster
        buran77 6y ago
        There's a bit of a problem here because cognitive dissonance is harder to apply to companies, they are not a single mind even if they almost act like it. I doubt the people under the company's umbrella hold the 2 ideas in their head concurrently, they just put aside any moral aspect and let "the company" bear this moral weight, they just have a job to do regardless of personal preference. Perhaps hypocrisy would be a better term to describe them. They'll say something is bad but they'll do the very same thing depending on how this suits their agenda.
        fogetti 6y ago
        Not at all. Hypocrisy is the act of criticizing OTHERS for something, while engaging in the same behavior. That's completely beside the point and no-one talks about that here.
- theelous3 6y ago
  Aye, cognitive distancing would be more accurate, though I don't really know what the actual term that applies here is. I generally just refer to it as simply lacking morals, be it in the form of immorality or deep ignorance, neither of which are excusable.
- gwd 6y ago
  > Cognitive dissonance is an essential requirement I think the correct word here is "doublethink". Cognitive dissonance implies experiencing an unpleasant sensation from the contradiction, which leads people to try resolve the dissonance. Doublethink implies fully accepting two contradictory notions at once without any unpleasant sensation.
- DSingularity 6y ago
  What can we say about the legions of engineers and scientists that work for these companies?
  - cryptica 6y ago
    Either they're desperate or they're immoral. If you're not poor, then it's immoral to work in such company. If I had to choose between working for a monopolistic corporation or a mafia, I think I'd rather join the mafia because I can't stand hypocrisy. At least they're honest about what they're going to do to you if you don't pay them the protection money and they're not pretending to be the good guys. A mafia has a clear, well defined moral code with clear boundaries which limit the harm they do; also unlike corporate entities, the members of mafias take risks upon themselves.
- skinnymuch 6y ago
  Are people on HN, reddit, et al, who have criticisms over vast numbers of people, mostly cogs, but all seem to be working jobs at companies that don’t do much harm, if any? It appears as if at some level all of us need to have some level of cognitive dissonance to not see ourselves as bad people. I know there are levels to how bad things can be. I’m just saying no one is a saint.
LudwigNagasena 6y ago
The EU Commission is a powerful barely accountable entity. It may be hypocritical for FB to defend privacy but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are wrong.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  Well they are still orders of magnitude more accountable than facebook, that's the irony.
- matthewheath 6y ago
  In what way is it "barely accountable"? It's appointed by Member States directly through the European Council (the heads of each Member State who meet quarterly to discuss the EU), who propose nominations, and then confirmed by the MEPs from each Member State directly elected by their voters. So, from two directly accountable bodies: the heads of state of each country, and then directly elected MEPs. If EU voters don't like their Commission, they can always vote in new MEPs and new governments to represent them on the Council. There are many arguable democratic deficits within the EU, but isn't one of them in my opinion.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    Because "in practice" voters are extremely far removed from the decision process. And it isn't just a problem of scale. It is like the US inverted. The voters don't vote the president directly, but the Trump vs Biden debate makes clear how things are done "in practice".
cycomanic 6y ago
>You are assuming that they have this information. However their argument is that the search terms "could" retrieve such documents. There is nothing here that confirms they possess these purportedly irrelevant documents that would be produced given the current search terms. Having the documents is a necessary condition to them being found (or in other words if they don't have the documents they can not be found), so I would hope making such an argument without actually having any documents containing this information would get them a stern talking to by the judge. Then again law often works very different to what we laypeople assume.
cryptica 6y ago
>> You are assuming that they have this information. Isn't that the entire premise of the article? What you're suggesting here is that Facebook doesn't hold any data until the government asks for it, then that data magically appears on its servers and suddenly it needs to be protected from big bad government. How convenient.

op03 6y ago

It's not a new level. Cognitive dissonance is an essential requirement to work in Wall St, the MIL complex, Exxon, big tobacco, the gambling industry etc etc. They all have their own stories about how it's okay to exploit weakness in people. They all reach a stage where to survive they cannot break with their stories. Cognitive dissonance is par for the course. Facebook by adding the Like button to the Internet is basically giving out free dopamine in exchange for attention that they exchange for $$$. It's a modern legal unregulated drug peddling empire. And all empires collapse because of their cognitive dissonance.

kryogen1c 6y ago
> Cognitive dissonance is an essential requirement to work in oh, boo. this is a sophomoric examination that does not do justice to the subject being critiqued. cognitive dissonance has become a buzzword and its incorrect usage is exemplified here. those people aren't struggling with a value conflict, they just have different values than you do. the path to togetherness, thoughtfull discussion, and mind-changing lies with honest recognition and good-faith debate, not name-calling.
- fogetti 6y ago
  Can you point me to the discussion where I can confirm that this has become a buzzword?
  - Mary-Jane 6y ago
    You miss the point. Many people that work at tobacco companies probably like to smoke!
    - fogetti 6y ago
      You miss the point actually. The poster made a statement without any proof. It's a classic logical fallacy. And your example...? Proves what exactly? It's the exact opposite of a cognitive dissonance. The behavior is consistent with the company values. But the discussion point is that the company behavior is most of the time inconsistent with the company values. E.g. Exxon value is env friendly energy <-> Exxon true behavior is causing env disaster
      - buran77 6y ago
        There's a bit of a problem here because cognitive dissonance is harder to apply to companies, they are not a single mind even if they almost act like it. I doubt the people under the company's umbrella hold the 2 ideas in their head concurrently, they just put aside any moral aspect and let "the company" bear this moral weight, they just have a job to do regardless of personal preference. Perhaps hypocrisy would be a better term to describe them. They'll say something is bad but they'll do the very same thing depending on how this suits their agenda.
        fogetti 6y ago
        Not at all. Hypocrisy is the act of criticizing OTHERS for something, while engaging in the same behavior. That's completely beside the point and no-one talks about that here.
theelous3 6y ago
Aye, cognitive distancing would be more accurate, though I don't really know what the actual term that applies here is. I generally just refer to it as simply lacking morals, be it in the form of immorality or deep ignorance, neither of which are excusable.
gwd 6y ago
> Cognitive dissonance is an essential requirement I think the correct word here is "doublethink". Cognitive dissonance implies experiencing an unpleasant sensation from the contradiction, which leads people to try resolve the dissonance. Doublethink implies fully accepting two contradictory notions at once without any unpleasant sensation.
DSingularity 6y ago
What can we say about the legions of engineers and scientists that work for these companies?
- cryptica 6y ago
  Either they're desperate or they're immoral. If you're not poor, then it's immoral to work in such company. If I had to choose between working for a monopolistic corporation or a mafia, I think I'd rather join the mafia because I can't stand hypocrisy. At least they're honest about what they're going to do to you if you don't pay them the protection money and they're not pretending to be the good guys. A mafia has a clear, well defined moral code with clear boundaries which limit the harm they do; also unlike corporate entities, the members of mafias take risks upon themselves.
skinnymuch 6y ago
Are people on HN, reddit, et al, who have criticisms over vast numbers of people, mostly cogs, but all seem to be working jobs at companies that don’t do much harm, if any? It appears as if at some level all of us need to have some level of cognitive dissonance to not see ourselves as bad people. I know there are levels to how bad things can be. I’m just saying no one is a saint.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago

The EU Commission is a powerful barely accountable entity. It may be hypocritical for FB to defend privacy but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are wrong.

cycomanic 6y ago
Well they are still orders of magnitude more accountable than facebook, that's the irony.
matthewheath 6y ago
In what way is it "barely accountable"? It's appointed by Member States directly through the European Council (the heads of each Member State who meet quarterly to discuss the EU), who propose nominations, and then confirmed by the MEPs from each Member State directly elected by their voters. So, from two directly accountable bodies: the heads of state of each country, and then directly elected MEPs. If EU voters don't like their Commission, they can always vote in new MEPs and new governments to represent them on the Council. There are many arguable democratic deficits within the EU, but isn't one of them in my opinion.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  Because "in practice" voters are extremely far removed from the decision process. And it isn't just a problem of scale. It is like the US inverted. The voters don't vote the president directly, but the Trump vs Biden debate makes clear how things are done "in practice".

cycomanic 6y ago

>You are assuming that they have this information. However their argument is that the search terms "could" retrieve such documents. There is nothing here that confirms they possess these purportedly irrelevant documents that would be produced given the current search terms. Having the documents is a necessary condition to them being found (or in other words if they don't have the documents they can not be found), so I would hope making such an argument without actually having any documents containing this information would get them a stern talking to by the judge. Then again law often works very different to what we laypeople assume.

cryptica 6y ago

>> You are assuming that they have this information. Isn't that the entire premise of the article? What you're suggesting here is that Facebook doesn't hold any data until the government asks for it, then that data magically appears on its servers and suddenly it needs to be protected from big bad government. How convenient.