7 ms·

I'm sure what she's saying is only part of the evil that Facebook represents, but there's something fishy about the whole setup. Why is she getting full media

by cpr 5y ago

I'm sure what she's saying is only part of the evil that Facebook represents, but there's something fishy about the whole setup. Why is she getting full media coverage and support, when previous whistleblowers were roundly ignored? She's a very wealthy person (1B estimated), so perhaps she's fairly well insulated from any blowback? But again, why is now the time to pile on Facebook, and why this person? [edit] Hint: She's in fact calling for more censorship of the views she doesn't like. [edit] Greenwald nails it (just published): https://greenwald.substack.com/p/democrats-and-media-do-not-want-to https://greenwald.substack.com/p/democrats-and-media-do-not-...

buitreVirtual 5y ago
It's called a tipping point. Previous critics made similar denunciations, but most people and even the media just shrugged and pretended nothing bad was happening. It takes time for society to acknowledge inconvenient truths. Plus, here, Haugen provided a wealth of documentation.
leahbarton 5y ago
What's your source on her wealth? I'm only finding second hand sources stating up to 5 million...
- dntrkv 5y ago
  There is no source because nobody under the C-level is worth anywhere close to that much.
  - gruez 5y ago
    maybe 1B is family wealth rather than personal wealth?
  - busterarm 5y ago
    She's one of the cofounders of Hinge, which was acquired by Match Group.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      What are the chances Hinge made it to acquisition without giving shares to employees and investors? Wiki says they nearly went bankrupt just before a funding round. Even Zuckerberg only owned 28% of Facebook at IPO.
      - busterarm 5y ago
        Oh I'm not saying she has a billion. Odds are she is quite wealthy though.
- shill_cunt 5y ago
  there is no source. you are seeing firsthand Facebook shills trying to discredit her. fuck Facebook and zuck the cuck
- burkaman 5y ago
  I believe they searched "frances haugen net worth" and then copied from this extremely reputable source: https://primalinformation.com/frances-haugen-wiki-net-worth/ https://primalinformation.com/frances-haugen-wiki-net-worth/
- keewee7 5y ago
  She founded Hinge that was bought by Match Group for $2 billion. Update: There is no verifiable information about her stake in the company.
  - DeRock 5y ago
    There is no reality in which she had a 50% stake in hinge at the time of sale. I would be shocked if she had >1%. She was involved only in the very early stages.
    - gnicholas 5y ago
      True, though the stock market has gone up a ton since 2018. If she put $50M into a mix of tech stocks, crypto, and Bay Area real estate in 2018, she could have hundreds of millions by now. I agree she likely doesn't have a billion if the Hinge sale is the primary source of her wealth.
  - burkaman 5y ago
    Hinge is worth $2 billion today (according to some random site, would love a good source) and was fully acquired nearly 3 years ago. And there's no chance she had 50% equity. It's not even clear if she had any.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- saulpw 5y ago
  It's based on her co-founding Hinge, which apparently is now worth $2b. Hinge had sold 100% of shares by 2019, so she might have done well for herself, but definitely not 50% of current valuation.
whatshisface 5y ago
Here are some points I notice about this whole thing: - Facebook has stated (in the press release the article is reporting on) that they support regulation. This is typical for large market incumbents, who have been said to always support fixed-overhead regulation, because it hurts smaller competitors more than it hurts them. - Washington loves regulating things and can be safely assumed to be pro-policy in most cases. More to the point, incumbents today are far more concerned about the possibility of being blindsided in their campaigns by maneuvers on a platform their own team doesn't know how to work with, than they are about the difficult to quantify pros and cons of balancing antitrust and libertarian policy. You'd expect them to be pro-regulation on average, if it reduces the importance of the internet in running campaigns. - The public is not presently pro-regulation and nobody really knows what form the regulations should take. So in a nutshell, everyone who's powerful in this situation wants the same outcome, and all that is left is to convince the public to support a bill which will probably be titled something like "Cyberspeech Freedom Act of 2022." Lobbyists may have already drafted it, and we can expect that well-meaning activists will be swept along by the push and end up supporting something they wouldn't like if they fully understood what it was.
- Hokusai 5y ago
  > The public is not presently pro-regulation I guess that this is true for the USA. But Facebook is a global company and other countries may be more regulation friendly.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- shadilay 5y ago
  This seems to be a case of tech monopolies usurping power from the traditional power brokers who are now pushing back demanding to be put in charge again.
- busterarm 5y ago
  100% share your take on the subject. Additionally, reading the whistleblower's account and her opinions/goals struck me as an incredibly naive way of thinking...although I think she may be genuine (she's my age and I have many peers like her). What kind of organization respects the value of complete top-down organizational change initiated by rank and file members of the company? Who would think an organization would give them that kind of power? The role that she was hired for seems destined to give her no resources to accomplish the stated goals; we saw something similar but on a much smaller scale with Basecamp. I know a lot of my peers believe in the power to make sweeping organizational changes like that, but it's "fucking with other peoples' money". To me the whole situation seems like the setup to a bad joke. Facebook doesn't have to do much to smear her in my eyes because she already strikes me as a ridiculous person. That said, Facebook is similarly ridiculous for hiring people with causes in direct opposition to how they do business and giving everyone in the company unfettered access to damaging internal information.
orzig 5y ago
Citation majorly needed on "1B estimated"
- jcomis 5y ago
  They are a cofounder of the dating app "Hinge". No idea where the "1B estimated" comes from at all however.
AlbertCory 5y ago
There are very few billionaires. Who "estimated" this? Based on what?
BitwiseFool 5y ago
I'm paraphrasing a similar comment I made on a different thread, but this whole situation seems fishy to me... Out of the blue some larger-than-life person (with impeccable credentials, no less) comes out of the woodwork and is lauded with attention while the big news outlets make this massive push against Facebook, all while congress is holding hearings about regulating social media. Then a massive outage happens at Facebook right after the New York Times published an article titled "Facebook Is Weaker Than We Knew." (This could honestly just be atrocious luck and an incredible coincidence.) This woman is also remarkably calm, well-spoken, knowledgeable, and articulate for someone testifying before the Senate for the very first time - all while being broadcast around the globe, live on television. Perhaps she's simply a natural, but I sense she received some coaching and preparation beforehand. Combine that with how well she is being received by senators from both parties and you start to wonder just how much of this was orchestrated in advance.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > Perhaps she's simply a natural, but I sense she received some coaching and preparation beforehand. So? Do you think Zuckerberg doesn't get coaching and preparation before his hearing appearances?
  - initplus 5y ago
    I understand why Zuckerberg had coaching and preparation before his appearance - because he has the backing of a megacorporation. It's interesting to speculate on who is supporting the FB whistleblower's campaign.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      Any high-profile whistleblower is going to have a legal team supporting them with hearing prep, especially if they're fairly well off financially.
- keewee7 5y ago
  I mean it's pretty obvious why they're targeting Facebook and not the other big Internet companies. Facebook is the only one still allowing far-right speech on their platform. That is why the Democrats are going after them.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
etchalon 5y ago
This is nonsense. She's receiving a large press and Congressional focus because she's testifying about harm to children. Not political censorship, perceived bias, or internal politics. It's a cleaner story. Greenwald, like all politicians, is twisting the story to meet his narrative. He doesn't "nail it". He's just regurgitating his preferred talking point, and ignoring her actual testimony.

by cpr 5y ago

buitreVirtual 5y ago

It's called a tipping point. Previous critics made similar denunciations, but most people and even the media just shrugged and pretended nothing bad was happening. It takes time for society to acknowledge inconvenient truths. Plus, here, Haugen provided a wealth of documentation.

leahbarton 5y ago

What's your source on her wealth? I'm only finding second hand sources stating up to 5 million...

dntrkv 5y ago
There is no source because nobody under the C-level is worth anywhere close to that much.
- gruez 5y ago
  maybe 1B is family wealth rather than personal wealth?
- busterarm 5y ago
  She's one of the cofounders of Hinge, which was acquired by Match Group.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    What are the chances Hinge made it to acquisition without giving shares to employees and investors? Wiki says they nearly went bankrupt just before a funding round. Even Zuckerberg only owned 28% of Facebook at IPO.
    - busterarm 5y ago
      Oh I'm not saying she has a billion. Odds are she is quite wealthy though.
shill_cunt 5y ago
there is no source. you are seeing firsthand Facebook shills trying to discredit her. fuck Facebook and zuck the cuck
burkaman 5y ago
I believe they searched "frances haugen net worth" and then copied from this extremely reputable source: https://primalinformation.com/frances-haugen-wiki-net-worth/ https://primalinformation.com/frances-haugen-wiki-net-worth/
keewee7 5y ago
She founded Hinge that was bought by Match Group for $2 billion. Update: There is no verifiable information about her stake in the company.
- DeRock 5y ago
  There is no reality in which she had a 50% stake in hinge at the time of sale. I would be shocked if she had >1%. She was involved only in the very early stages.
  - gnicholas 5y ago
    True, though the stock market has gone up a ton since 2018. If she put $50M into a mix of tech stocks, crypto, and Bay Area real estate in 2018, she could have hundreds of millions by now. I agree she likely doesn't have a billion if the Hinge sale is the primary source of her wealth.
- burkaman 5y ago
  Hinge is worth $2 billion today (according to some random site, would love a good source) and was fully acquired nearly 3 years ago. And there's no chance she had 50% equity. It's not even clear if she had any.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
saulpw 5y ago
It's based on her co-founding Hinge, which apparently is now worth $2b. Hinge had sold 100% of shares by 2019, so she might have done well for herself, but definitely not 50% of current valuation.

whatshisface 5y ago

Here are some points I notice about this whole thing: - Facebook has stated (in the press release the article is reporting on) that they support regulation. This is typical for large market incumbents, who have been said to always support fixed-overhead regulation, because it hurts smaller competitors more than it hurts them. - Washington loves regulating things and can be safely assumed to be pro-policy in most cases. More to the point, incumbents today are far more concerned about the possibility of being blindsided in their campaigns by maneuvers on a platform their own team doesn't know how to work with, than they are about the difficult to quantify pros and cons of balancing antitrust and libertarian policy. You'd expect them to be pro-regulation on average, if it reduces the importance of the internet in running campaigns. - The public is not presently pro-regulation and nobody really knows what form the regulations should take. So in a nutshell, everyone who's powerful in this situation wants the same outcome, and all that is left is to convince the public to support a bill which will probably be titled something like "Cyberspeech Freedom Act of 2022." Lobbyists may have already drafted it, and we can expect that well-meaning activists will be swept along by the push and end up supporting something they wouldn't like if they fully understood what it was.

Hokusai 5y ago
> The public is not presently pro-regulation I guess that this is true for the USA. But Facebook is a global company and other countries may be more regulation friendly.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
shadilay 5y ago
This seems to be a case of tech monopolies usurping power from the traditional power brokers who are now pushing back demanding to be put in charge again.
busterarm 5y ago
100% share your take on the subject. Additionally, reading the whistleblower's account and her opinions/goals struck me as an incredibly naive way of thinking...although I think she may be genuine (she's my age and I have many peers like her). What kind of organization respects the value of complete top-down organizational change initiated by rank and file members of the company? Who would think an organization would give them that kind of power? The role that she was hired for seems destined to give her no resources to accomplish the stated goals; we saw something similar but on a much smaller scale with Basecamp. I know a lot of my peers believe in the power to make sweeping organizational changes like that, but it's "fucking with other peoples' money". To me the whole situation seems like the setup to a bad joke. Facebook doesn't have to do much to smear her in my eyes because she already strikes me as a ridiculous person. That said, Facebook is similarly ridiculous for hiring people with causes in direct opposition to how they do business and giving everyone in the company unfettered access to damaging internal information.

orzig 5y ago

Citation majorly needed on "1B estimated"

jcomis 5y ago
They are a cofounder of the dating app "Hinge". No idea where the "1B estimated" comes from at all however.

AlbertCory 5y ago

There are very few billionaires. Who "estimated" this? Based on what?

BitwiseFool 5y ago

I'm paraphrasing a similar comment I made on a different thread, but this whole situation seems fishy to me... Out of the blue some larger-than-life person (with impeccable credentials, no less) comes out of the woodwork and is lauded with attention while the big news outlets make this massive push against Facebook, all while congress is holding hearings about regulating social media. Then a massive outage happens at Facebook right after the New York Times published an article titled "Facebook Is Weaker Than We Knew." (This could honestly just be atrocious luck and an incredible coincidence.) This woman is also remarkably calm, well-spoken, knowledgeable, and articulate for someone testifying before the Senate for the very first time - all while being broadcast around the globe, live on television. Perhaps she's simply a natural, but I sense she received some coaching and preparation beforehand. Combine that with how well she is being received by senators from both parties and you start to wonder just how much of this was orchestrated in advance.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> Perhaps she's simply a natural, but I sense she received some coaching and preparation beforehand. So? Do you think Zuckerberg doesn't get coaching and preparation before his hearing appearances?
- initplus 5y ago
  I understand why Zuckerberg had coaching and preparation before his appearance - because he has the backing of a megacorporation. It's interesting to speculate on who is supporting the FB whistleblower's campaign.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Any high-profile whistleblower is going to have a legal team supporting them with hearing prep, especially if they're fairly well off financially.
keewee7 5y ago
I mean it's pretty obvious why they're targeting Facebook and not the other big Internet companies. Facebook is the only one still allowing far-right speech on their platform. That is why the Democrats are going after them.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

etchalon 5y ago

This is nonsense. She's receiving a large press and Congressional focus because she's testifying about harm to children. Not political censorship, perceived bias, or internal politics. It's a cleaner story. Greenwald, like all politicians, is twisting the story to meet his narrative. He doesn't "nail it". He's just regurgitating his preferred talking point, and ignoring her actual testimony.