5 ms·

What concrete information has been revealed that implicates Facebook in illegal behavior? How does the "whistleblower"'s stated desires wrt goverment-mandated

by prvc 5y ago

What concrete information has been revealed that implicates Facebook in illegal behavior? How does the "whistleblower"'s stated desires wrt goverment-mandated moderation standards differ from those articulated by representatives of the company itself? Such a framework would shift liability away from the company, possibly reduce their moderation load, and create a significant barrier for entry for potential competitors.

avisser 5y ago
In the 60 minutes interview her lawyer cites part of Dodd-Frank that protects whistleblowers going to the SEC. Their position is that the documents are material to investors re:valuation and that Facebook was negligent by not providing it. https://youtu.be/_Lx5VmAdZSI?t=596 https://youtu.be/_Lx5VmAdZSI?t=596
- jhawk28 5y ago
  The problem is that would cover pretty much anything.
  - gameswithgo 5y ago
    Why is that a problem?
  - nostrademons 5y ago
    That's the intent, not the problem.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    As the famous Levine's quip goes, "everything is securities fraud". From first reading of the article, it seems to me she just wants to nail Facebook with SEC, with everything else being just noise to get media attention.
travoc 5y ago
The whistleblower is taking a huge legal risk here. I wonder if the Wall Street Journal has really explained the consequences to the leaker.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  She is taking a risk, and I salute her for it. But at the end of the day, it is likely her career will have a huge boost from this. And Facebook would probably be very foolish to go after her.
  - AzzieElbab 5y ago
    umm if this hearing results in some kind of monetary settlement she will be entitled to some of it
    - robbrown451 5y ago
      I can't see how a monetary settlement would be the result of this.
      - AzzieElbab 5y ago
        why not? this hearing is not about monopolization, and fb cannot be singled out when it comes to regulations either
- nostrademons 5y ago
  I worked with her briefly on Google+. She struck me as a trust-fund kid: idealistic, brash, (perhaps over)confident, intelligent but prone to tackling problems that can't be solved. Wikipedia says her parents were a doctor & academic-turned-priest, so she's likely got some family wealth backing her up. It's a different calculus than for most of the people here, who can't afford good lawyers and need that paycheck to survive.
- RubberMullet 5y ago
  Not like Snowden, Kiriakou, or Binney. This whole thing has been carefully orchestrated. She probably has a position at the Brookings Institute waiting for her but not before she completes her podcast/talk show book tour.
newfonewhodis 5y ago
> What concrete information has been revealed that implicates Facebook in illegal behavior? I'll leave it up to the legal system to decide what FB has done that's currently illegal. However, you don't just blow the whistle when you think laws are being broken. Sometimes you do it to start a discussion that can change the laws. It's clear from the Facebook Files stories and documents that FB has known about the effects of their product on consumers (especially kids) and 1. lied to the public 2. lied to lawmakers 3. didn't change the product in ways that positively impacted kids. That's obviously messed up and is not (afaik, ianal) covered under current US laws. I do strongly believe that it should. Platforms have responsibility, and S230 entirely takes the responsibility away from them.
- caminante 5y ago
  >1. lied to the public 2. lied to lawmakers 3. didn't change the product in ways that positively impacted kids. To the parent's request, something needs to be concrete and egregious for a prosecutor to chase this.
- prvc 5y ago
  Will the "lying to shareholders" argument hold up under scrutiny, though? The putative knowledge they supposedly withheld is extremely vague, and what's more, pertains to very sensationalistic topics. The delta between appearance and reality for these revelations' severity couldn't be greater.
flandish 5y ago
What I don't understand is how this is different than Nike making shoes with child labor overseas in the "global south", etc. That harms children, for profit. Facebook is a for profit organization. This is the rule with organizations like this. If given enough time, size, and lack of shielding, any corporation will eventually cause harm in some way. We seem to have less focus on "Nike whistleblowers" or similar, you get the idea.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  It's a very different issue. One important difference is that the children being harmed here are American children. Rightly or wrongly, it raises the priority since American parents are seeing their own children harmed. I don't want to defend Nike, but still, the fact that people are poor enough to send their kids off to factories to make shoes isn't Nike's fault. But again, very different issue. Worthwhile to think about, but I don't think it should detract from this one.
- JohnFen 5y ago
  Nike has received (and continues to receive) a lot of attention about that sort of thing for decades. But, on a larger level, I see several comments that seem to be implying that talking about the wrongdoing of one company isn't valid unless we talk about the wrongdoing of all companies at the same time. I think that argument is faulty. If the argument were good, then it wouldn't be possible to talk about any company's wrongdoing because you'll always be leaving others out of the conversation.
  - flandish 5y ago
    I understand where you are coming from - I was speaking more to the "meta" understanding of how this is a surprise to some folks (in gov).
  - 8note 5y ago
    I don't think the focus on Nike has resulted in the whole industry being fixed. Companies are case studies of a problem, any single one is insufficient information for coming up with solutions.
SavantIdiot 5y ago
If you can't moderate your platform, you shouldn't have a platform. This "Boo hoo we can't moderate ... " wipes tears with billions of dollars... is deadly comedy, yet lots of people fall for it.
- throwawayay02 5y ago
  Or maybe have no moderation at all? I was under the impression you only see posts from people you follow, so if you're an adult, why require any moderation at all except for not showing what your country deems illegal?
- gruez 5y ago
  > If you can't moderate your platform, you shouldn't have a platform. what counts as "moderate"? only removing illegal material? removing fake news as well? maybe remove questionable news as well, as long as it's towards the "greater good"?
  - SavantIdiot 5y ago
    Yep. Next. After 4 years of non stop lies from the Trump machine, Q and AntiVaxx, you can fuck right off.
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
Is Zuckerberg lying to congress illegal behavior? These docs seem to have made a pretty clear case that he did that.
fullshark 5y ago
The claim is FB mislead shareholders about their product and committed securities fraud.

by prvc 5y ago

avisser 5y ago

In the 60 minutes interview her lawyer cites part of Dodd-Frank that protects whistleblowers going to the SEC. Their position is that the documents are material to investors re:valuation and that Facebook was negligent by not providing it. https://youtu.be/_Lx5VmAdZSI?t=596 https://youtu.be/_Lx5VmAdZSI?t=596

jhawk28 5y ago
The problem is that would cover pretty much anything.
- gameswithgo 5y ago
  Why is that a problem?
- nostrademons 5y ago
  That's the intent, not the problem.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  As the famous Levine's quip goes, "everything is securities fraud". From first reading of the article, it seems to me she just wants to nail Facebook with SEC, with everything else being just noise to get media attention.

travoc 5y ago

The whistleblower is taking a huge legal risk here. I wonder if the Wall Street Journal has really explained the consequences to the leaker.

robbrown451 5y ago
She is taking a risk, and I salute her for it. But at the end of the day, it is likely her career will have a huge boost from this. And Facebook would probably be very foolish to go after her.
- AzzieElbab 5y ago
  umm if this hearing results in some kind of monetary settlement she will be entitled to some of it
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    I can't see how a monetary settlement would be the result of this.
    - AzzieElbab 5y ago
      why not? this hearing is not about monopolization, and fb cannot be singled out when it comes to regulations either
nostrademons 5y ago
I worked with her briefly on Google+. She struck me as a trust-fund kid: idealistic, brash, (perhaps over)confident, intelligent but prone to tackling problems that can't be solved. Wikipedia says her parents were a doctor & academic-turned-priest, so she's likely got some family wealth backing her up. It's a different calculus than for most of the people here, who can't afford good lawyers and need that paycheck to survive.
RubberMullet 5y ago
Not like Snowden, Kiriakou, or Binney. This whole thing has been carefully orchestrated. She probably has a position at the Brookings Institute waiting for her but not before she completes her podcast/talk show book tour.

newfonewhodis 5y ago

> What concrete information has been revealed that implicates Facebook in illegal behavior? I'll leave it up to the legal system to decide what FB has done that's currently illegal. However, you don't just blow the whistle when you think laws are being broken. Sometimes you do it to start a discussion that can change the laws. It's clear from the Facebook Files stories and documents that FB has known about the effects of their product on consumers (especially kids) and 1. lied to the public 2. lied to lawmakers 3. didn't change the product in ways that positively impacted kids. That's obviously messed up and is not (afaik, ianal) covered under current US laws. I do strongly believe that it should. Platforms have responsibility, and S230 entirely takes the responsibility away from them.

caminante 5y ago
>1. lied to the public 2. lied to lawmakers 3. didn't change the product in ways that positively impacted kids. To the parent's request, something needs to be concrete and egregious for a prosecutor to chase this.
prvc 5y ago
Will the "lying to shareholders" argument hold up under scrutiny, though? The putative knowledge they supposedly withheld is extremely vague, and what's more, pertains to very sensationalistic topics. The delta between appearance and reality for these revelations' severity couldn't be greater.

flandish 5y ago

What I don't understand is how this is different than Nike making shoes with child labor overseas in the "global south", etc. That harms children, for profit. Facebook is a for profit organization. This is the rule with organizations like this. If given enough time, size, and lack of shielding, any corporation will eventually cause harm in some way. We seem to have less focus on "Nike whistleblowers" or similar, you get the idea.

robbrown451 5y ago
It's a very different issue. One important difference is that the children being harmed here are American children. Rightly or wrongly, it raises the priority since American parents are seeing their own children harmed. I don't want to defend Nike, but still, the fact that people are poor enough to send their kids off to factories to make shoes isn't Nike's fault. But again, very different issue. Worthwhile to think about, but I don't think it should detract from this one.
JohnFen 5y ago
Nike has received (and continues to receive) a lot of attention about that sort of thing for decades. But, on a larger level, I see several comments that seem to be implying that talking about the wrongdoing of one company isn't valid unless we talk about the wrongdoing of all companies at the same time. I think that argument is faulty. If the argument were good, then it wouldn't be possible to talk about any company's wrongdoing because you'll always be leaving others out of the conversation.
- flandish 5y ago
  I understand where you are coming from - I was speaking more to the "meta" understanding of how this is a surprise to some folks (in gov).
- 8note 5y ago
  I don't think the focus on Nike has resulted in the whole industry being fixed. Companies are case studies of a problem, any single one is insufficient information for coming up with solutions.

SavantIdiot 5y ago

If you can't moderate your platform, you shouldn't have a platform. This "Boo hoo we can't moderate ... " wipes tears with billions of dollars... is deadly comedy, yet lots of people fall for it.

throwawayay02 5y ago
Or maybe have no moderation at all? I was under the impression you only see posts from people you follow, so if you're an adult, why require any moderation at all except for not showing what your country deems illegal?
gruez 5y ago
> If you can't moderate your platform, you shouldn't have a platform. what counts as "moderate"? only removing illegal material? removing fake news as well? maybe remove questionable news as well, as long as it's towards the "greater good"?
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  Yep. Next. After 4 years of non stop lies from the Trump machine, Q and AntiVaxx, you can fuck right off.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

Is Zuckerberg lying to congress illegal behavior? These docs seem to have made a pretty clear case that he did that.

fullshark 5y ago

The claim is FB mislead shareholders about their product and committed securities fraud.