5 ms·

"If the best Facebook can come up with is this disgusting attempt at character assassination, Haugen is telling God’s own truth. We should listen to her." A pr

"If the best Facebook can come up with is this disgusting attempt at character assassination, Haugen is telling God’s own truth. We should listen to her." A pretty powerful closing statement IMHO.

whatshisface 5y ago
>Facebook PR: “Today a Senate Commerce subcommittee held a hearing with a former product manager at Facebook who worked for the company for less than two years, had no direct reports, never attended a decision-point meeting with C-level executives — and testified more than six times to not working on the subject matter in question.” This doesn't sound like character assassination, it's Facebook claiming that she wasn't informed enough. It would be like the NSA telling us not to listen to Snowden because he didn't actually work on the programs that he obtained documents about.
- chalst 5y ago
  Character assassination is not done in one press release. It's done in a campaign of PRs and cossetting friendly journalists and newspapers. Perhaps it's premature to call it character assassination, but we've seen this play out quite a few times.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Smoosh 5y ago
    I believe that the term of art is "backgrounding". As in the company provides "background" information such as seems to be the case here. Of course, this is really the company framing the conversation and deflecting the criticisms without addressing them. I see the discussion here is largely fixated on whether this constitutes a "smear" or not. So, it seems to be working from Facebook's point of view as we are not discussing the actual allegations against them.
- compscistd 5y ago
  It’s a rather unconvincing but mean way to discount someone. If anything, FB saying how unrelated she is to these problems absolves her of being a part of it. Focus on the documents. Despite that, not everyone has the will to connect these dots.
- melvinmt 5y ago
  Sounds to me this type of language can also backfire; next step of Congress could be to then subpoena someone who did work on the subject matter and did have C-level exec access...
- rustymonday 5y ago
  You're not wrong. But Facebook's attempt to discredit Frances Haugen is poor. From the congressional hearing today, she did not answer questions beyond her expertise [1], and she had over a decade of relevant experience in Engagement Based Ranking algorithms [2], which was largely the focus of the hearing. [1] https://youtu.be/GoSPmqqKams?t=4160 https://youtu.be/GoSPmqqKams?t=4160 [2] https://youtu.be/GoSPmqqKams?t=3482 https://youtu.be/GoSPmqqKams?t=3482
adolph 5y ago
"telling God’s own truth" Tremendously convincing.
- amelius 5y ago
  As opposed to alternative truths.
  - adolph 5y ago
    Just as long as a stack of bibles is involved.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      The use of "God" in that statement refers to an objective source. While I'm not a fan of the phrase, it clearly means an absolute truth. No bibles necessary.
      - adolph 5y ago
        > The use of "God" in that statement refers to an objective source. Do tell.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        Like I said, it means a supposed absolute truth. As there is no objective source, you can use a term for what would be an objective source, "god."
        adolph 5y ago
        "[A] supposed absolute truth" Is that like a redundancy (absolute and truth) wrapped in a contradiction (supposed and absolute truth)? If there is no such thing (i.e. no objective source) why would one use any term for it? Why would one modify truth to be "god's own?" Is it a rhetorical claim to the authority/authenticity of an unseen third party?
BitwiseFool 5y ago
What a heavily editorialized statement for something that isn't marked as opinion. The whole article reeks of being written by someone who literally hates Facebook. And the use of the term "God's own truth" feels like a really underhanded and unjustified rhetorical trick. To use a analogy, It feels like they are declaring a winner during the opening argument of the prosecution, before the defense has even had a chance to fully respond: "If Facebook had evidence, it would show it." Doesn't the author realize that kind of counter evidence will come later?
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  > someone who literally hates Facebook No, the author doesn't hate Facebook, nor does the "whistleblower". This isn't being drive by hate, it's being driven by love: love of government-mandated censorship. They're not alone, either, Zuckerberg himself is a huge fan; that's why his pushback here was so weak. Facebook was running TV commercials last summer calling for tighter legal restriction on social media.
amelius 5y ago
Sounds more like a logical fallacy.
spfzero 5y ago
What she's telling, or not telling, is irrelevant, and indeed, partly because she has little experience at FB and not in a position that would make her privy to nefarious plots. What is relevant, is the documents, which are not being released in full. Only after they are will we see the full picture, so anything happening before that is just manufactured narrative to serve someone's purpose.

"If the best Facebook can come up with is this disgusting attempt at character assassination, Haugen is telling God’s own truth. We should listen to her." A pretty powerful closing statement IMHO.

whatshisface 5y ago

>Facebook PR: “Today a Senate Commerce subcommittee held a hearing with a former product manager at Facebook who worked for the company for less than two years, had no direct reports, never attended a decision-point meeting with C-level executives — and testified more than six times to not working on the subject matter in question.” This doesn't sound like character assassination, it's Facebook claiming that she wasn't informed enough. It would be like the NSA telling us not to listen to Snowden because he didn't actually work on the programs that he obtained documents about.

chalst 5y ago
Character assassination is not done in one press release. It's done in a campaign of PRs and cossetting friendly journalists and newspapers. Perhaps it's premature to call it character assassination, but we've seen this play out quite a few times.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Smoosh 5y ago
  I believe that the term of art is "backgrounding". As in the company provides "background" information such as seems to be the case here. Of course, this is really the company framing the conversation and deflecting the criticisms without addressing them. I see the discussion here is largely fixated on whether this constitutes a "smear" or not. So, it seems to be working from Facebook's point of view as we are not discussing the actual allegations against them.
compscistd 5y ago
It’s a rather unconvincing but mean way to discount someone. If anything, FB saying how unrelated she is to these problems absolves her of being a part of it. Focus on the documents. Despite that, not everyone has the will to connect these dots.
melvinmt 5y ago
Sounds to me this type of language can also backfire; next step of Congress could be to then subpoena someone who did work on the subject matter and did have C-level exec access...
rustymonday 5y ago
You're not wrong. But Facebook's attempt to discredit Frances Haugen is poor. From the congressional hearing today, she did not answer questions beyond her expertise [1], and she had over a decade of relevant experience in Engagement Based Ranking algorithms [2], which was largely the focus of the hearing. [1] https://youtu.be/GoSPmqqKams?t=4160 https://youtu.be/GoSPmqqKams?t=4160 [2] https://youtu.be/GoSPmqqKams?t=3482 https://youtu.be/GoSPmqqKams?t=3482

adolph 5y ago

"telling God’s own truth" Tremendously convincing.

amelius 5y ago
As opposed to alternative truths.
- adolph 5y ago
  Just as long as a stack of bibles is involved.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    The use of "God" in that statement refers to an objective source. While I'm not a fan of the phrase, it clearly means an absolute truth. No bibles necessary.
    - adolph 5y ago
      > The use of "God" in that statement refers to an objective source. Do tell.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        Like I said, it means a supposed absolute truth. As there is no objective source, you can use a term for what would be an objective source, "god."
        adolph 5y ago
        "[A] supposed absolute truth" Is that like a redundancy (absolute and truth) wrapped in a contradiction (supposed and absolute truth)? If there is no such thing (i.e. no objective source) why would one use any term for it? Why would one modify truth to be "god's own?" Is it a rhetorical claim to the authority/authenticity of an unseen third party?

BitwiseFool 5y ago

What a heavily editorialized statement for something that isn't marked as opinion. The whole article reeks of being written by someone who literally hates Facebook. And the use of the term "God's own truth" feels like a really underhanded and unjustified rhetorical trick. To use a analogy, It feels like they are declaring a winner during the opening argument of the prosecution, before the defense has even had a chance to fully respond: "If Facebook had evidence, it would show it." Doesn't the author realize that kind of counter evidence will come later?

commandlinefan 5y ago
> someone who literally hates Facebook No, the author doesn't hate Facebook, nor does the "whistleblower". This isn't being drive by hate, it's being driven by love: love of government-mandated censorship. They're not alone, either, Zuckerberg himself is a huge fan; that's why his pushback here was so weak. Facebook was running TV commercials last summer calling for tighter legal restriction on social media.

amelius 5y ago

Sounds more like a logical fallacy.

spfzero 5y ago

What she's telling, or not telling, is irrelevant, and indeed, partly because she has little experience at FB and not in a position that would make her privy to nefarious plots. What is relevant, is the documents, which are not being released in full. Only after they are will we see the full picture, so anything happening before that is just manufactured narrative to serve someone's purpose.