4 ms·

I personally don't understand why, as a whistleblower, she should also be proposing policies. "Hey there's something wrong" and "Here's how you fix it" seem lik

by krisrm 5y ago

I personally don't understand why, as a whistleblower, she should also be proposing policies. "Hey there's something wrong" and "Here's how you fix it" seem like they should be very distinct in these cases where someone could easily use their leverage as a "high profile" whistleblower to push a particular political agenda.

thatguy0900 5y ago
People ask for Snowdens take on everything too. I think it's just that as a whistle-blower they're somewhat of a verified good guy who also has domain expertise.
pixelgeek 5y ago
I think legislators want to hear opinions from people that have experience in the subject matter.
mikecoles 5y ago
Video that discusses her possible biases and the trojan horse suspicion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRjSjjyfN1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRjSjjyfN1U
- pixelgeek 5y ago
  Louder with Crowder? Really? Well he certainly is familiar with bias. I'll give you that.
  - mikecoles 5y ago
    So... nothing to refute? Just don't like the guy?
    - pixelgeek 5y ago
      Post a link to content posted by someone who isn't a bully and a homophobe and I'll look at it. Crowder is a cut-rate Rush Limbaugh without the gravitas and he has the same approach. I don't have any opinion about him as a person but as a source of information he isn't reputable and I'd not waste my time listening to him.
      - Banana699 5y ago
        >Post a link to content posted by someone who isn't a bully and a homophobe and I'll look at it. That's.. Not coherent. GP didn't ask you to look, you volunteered that you don't want to look.
      - bopbeepboop 5y ago
        Your comment on why you’re not viewing it: > someone who isn't a bully and a homophobe Your explanation of your own comment: > I don't have any opinion about him as a person […] as a source of information he isn't reputable I think at some level, you recognize that you’re ignoring a source based on your opinion of him as a person, so you feel the need to claim the opposite. You’d think if your second paragraph were true, you’d have commented on his failures as a source and not him as a person as the basis of your objection in the first paragraph.
      - notarget137 5y ago
        Is it not what is said a concern for you rather who is saying it?
thesausageking 5y ago
I understand the objection, but I think she is a subject matter expert having worked for Facebook, Yelp, and Pinterest. Also, while at Facebook, she worked in their civic integrity department, which is supposed to handle issues like what she was testifying on. Legislators can either take her suggestions or ignore them.

by krisrm 5y ago

thatguy0900 5y ago

People ask for Snowdens take on everything too. I think it's just that as a whistle-blower they're somewhat of a verified good guy who also has domain expertise.

pixelgeek 5y ago

I think legislators want to hear opinions from people that have experience in the subject matter.

mikecoles 5y ago

Video that discusses her possible biases and the trojan horse suspicion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRjSjjyfN1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRjSjjyfN1U

pixelgeek 5y ago
Louder with Crowder? Really? Well he certainly is familiar with bias. I'll give you that.
- mikecoles 5y ago
  So... nothing to refute? Just don't like the guy?
  - pixelgeek 5y ago
    Post a link to content posted by someone who isn't a bully and a homophobe and I'll look at it. Crowder is a cut-rate Rush Limbaugh without the gravitas and he has the same approach. I don't have any opinion about him as a person but as a source of information he isn't reputable and I'd not waste my time listening to him.
    - Banana699 5y ago
      >Post a link to content posted by someone who isn't a bully and a homophobe and I'll look at it. That's.. Not coherent. GP didn't ask you to look, you volunteered that you don't want to look.
    - bopbeepboop 5y ago
      Your comment on why you’re not viewing it: > someone who isn't a bully and a homophobe Your explanation of your own comment: > I don't have any opinion about him as a person […] as a source of information he isn't reputable I think at some level, you recognize that you’re ignoring a source based on your opinion of him as a person, so you feel the need to claim the opposite. You’d think if your second paragraph were true, you’d have commented on his failures as a source and not him as a person as the basis of your objection in the first paragraph.
    - notarget137 5y ago
      Is it not what is said a concern for you rather who is saying it?

thesausageking 5y ago

I understand the objection, but I think she is a subject matter expert having worked for Facebook, Yelp, and Pinterest. Also, while at Facebook, she worked in their civic integrity department, which is supposed to handle issues like what she was testifying on. Legislators can either take her suggestions or ignore them.