3 ms·

People reacting to what wasn't said

4 points by ColinWright 5y ago

Over here[0] was some tin-hat speculation that FB might use the outage as a distraction while they wiped data from their systems to cover evidence of their many, many infelicities. Immediately readers assumed that it's being suggested that the outage was being created to do this. That was never suggested. It was not suggested that the outage was instigated for the purpose of creating the cover, merely that it could be, might be, used as a cover. I'd hoped people would have a rational discussion about the question and the issues, the possibilities and the probabilities, but the submission has been flagged. Fair enough. What drives me to distraction is people not reading what's actually said, and instead reacting to something that wasn't said. I honestly expected better of the HN community. I guess I was wrong. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28752413

detaro 5y ago
So your interpretation is that they suggest that Facebook "upper management" can spontaneously organize to keep employees locked out while some somehow immediately formed (or prepared just in case something happens?) group of in-the-know people gains access and goes through systems to make an effective stab at deleting data, while dealing with an actual outage? Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious why everybody else either not read the comment that way, or thinks it's a totally unbelievable conspiracy theory.
- ColinWright 5y ago
  Given the current whistle-blower situation I think it entirely plausible that FFB currently has people thinking about ways to selectively erase data. And I think it's entirely plausible that the people involved in doing so would not be the same people as would have to be dealing with an outage. Maybe I've dealt with both the military and super-large organisations too much, but yes, I do consider scenarios like this. As part of designing soft-real-time safety-critical systems I had to think of scenarios like this. I continue to be surprised that people didn't read exactly what was said ... I generally expect programmers to be more literal. Again, I guess I was wrong. I'm learning. I won't make that assumption again, and I'll be more careful about exactly what I say, and how I say it.
coldtea 5y ago
>What drives me to distraction is people not reading what's actually said, and instead reacting to something that wasn't said. I honestly expected better of the HN community. Well, why should "what was said" (a mere opinion itself) solely be allowed to frame the issue? If someone can imply that the outage "could be, might be, used as a cover", then it's perfectly legit for someone to also opine that the outage was created as a cover in the first place. It might not be true, but then again the more limited claim might also not be true. It might also be too paranoid, but then again, someone might also say this for the original claim as well. Also it doesn't necessarily mean they didn't understood what was implied. It can also mean that they understood it, but think the expanded scope (outtage not just used, but created for the purpose) might be the case. So I don't get lamenting such as: "I honestly expected better of the HN community. I guess I was wrong".

4 points by ColinWright 5y ago

detaro 5y ago

So your interpretation is that they suggest that Facebook "upper management" can spontaneously organize to keep employees locked out while some somehow immediately formed (or prepared just in case something happens?) group of in-the-know people gains access and goes through systems to make an effective stab at deleting data, while dealing with an actual outage? Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious why everybody else either not read the comment that way, or thinks it's a totally unbelievable conspiracy theory.

ColinWright 5y ago
Given the current whistle-blower situation I think it entirely plausible that FFB currently has people thinking about ways to selectively erase data. And I think it's entirely plausible that the people involved in doing so would not be the same people as would have to be dealing with an outage. Maybe I've dealt with both the military and super-large organisations too much, but yes, I do consider scenarios like this. As part of designing soft-real-time safety-critical systems I had to think of scenarios like this. I continue to be surprised that people didn't read exactly what was said ... I generally expect programmers to be more literal. Again, I guess I was wrong. I'm learning. I won't make that assumption again, and I'll be more careful about exactly what I say, and how I say it.

coldtea 5y ago

>What drives me to distraction is people not reading what's actually said, and instead reacting to something that wasn't said. I honestly expected better of the HN community. Well, why should "what was said" (a mere opinion itself) solely be allowed to frame the issue? If someone can imply that the outage "could be, might be, used as a cover", then it's perfectly legit for someone to also opine that the outage was created as a cover in the first place. It might not be true, but then again the more limited claim might also not be true. It might also be too paranoid, but then again, someone might also say this for the original claim as well. Also it doesn't necessarily mean they didn't understood what was implied. It can also mean that they understood it, but think the expanded scope (outtage not just used, but created for the purpose) might be the case. So I don't get lamenting such as: "I honestly expected better of the HN community. I guess I was wrong".