4 ms·
How dare Facebook try to defend itself against public accusations.
by thrill 5y ago
How dare Facebook try to defend itself against public accusations.
- fireball_blaze 5y agoThe point the author is making is that the rebuttal has very little substance. The signal to noise ratio is low.
- falcolas 5y agoAs the article pointed out, they didn't defend themselves. They simply attempted to discredit the whistleblower, and change the subject. Let them defend themselves without character assassination, please.
- rPlayer6554 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.” Where does it mention her character??
- ceejayoz 5y agoWhere does it address "the subject matter in question"? She leaked 18k documents. How does the number of direct reports she supervised affect their veracity?
- _3u10 5y agoThey are addressing the testimony provided, not the documents which have not been provided. Generally after hacking a company, the documents are provided in a ZIP for everyone to download. Information wants to be free, but we are only being provided with her summary of the documents rather than the evidence itself.
- ceejayoz 5y ago> They are addressing the testimony provided… How? Where?
- bovermyer 5y agoFacebook's "defense" is not a defense at all, but a misdirection. While this article uses some pretty sensational language, it does accurately describe Facebook's response to Haugen's revelations.
- xmprt 5y agoFacebook's defense is like if someone accuses me of stealing something from a store and then I say the accuser has no security experience and was only in the store for 10 minutes.