3 ms·
As the article pointed out, they didn't defend themselves. They simply attempted to discredit the whistleblower, and change the subject. Let them defend themse
by falcolas 5y ago
As 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?