4 ms·

After Whistle-Blower Goes Public, Facebook Tries Calming Employees

bingohbangoh 5y ago
Can I really trust the NY Times to correctly report on this? They have every interest to see Facebook, which increasingly acts as a gatekeeper to traditional new sites, to look and be as bad as possible. Edit: This isn't a value judgement on whether the NYTimes is better than Facebook or anything similar.
- syspec 5y ago
  Yes.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  No, technically you cannot trust them, although I don't think they have reason to lie. Every successful supraregional newspaper today is dependent on Facebook and collaborates with it. To those that downvote you I would really hear your reason. My favorite high quality newspaper (non US) was transparent with that fact that direct collaboration is necessary for successful economic prospects. The paper said it can only promise to report objectively on Facebook, the dependence wasn't even disputed. I don't know exactly, but I would think it was at least 6-8 years ago. But I would argue that newspapers today try to establish themselves as authoritative sources. I think the problem Mrs Haugen tries to identify is far less dangerous than the proposed solution of a government institution consisting of former social media employees. That is ripe for special interest corruption. That is worse than some angry and angsty teenagers and even less democratic.
- lithos 5y ago
  Oh yeah, and after Facebook went down recently they probably saw how much better their numbers look without Facebook.
- slg 5y ago
  Do people not know how reporting works at a place like the NYT? The NYT does not act as a single institution with a single mind. There might be some institutional bias based off hiring practices, but individual reporters aren't going to be doing the company's dirty work like you are suggesting. The risk to their personal reputation is not worth protecting a company that might lay them off in 6 months.
  - bingohbangoh 5y ago
    Sure they can, if they perceive Facebook as a threat they'll report negative things about them. Do people not value job security? "Never ask a man to do something against which his salary depends on" and all that.
    - slg 5y ago
      Job security is less important than career security. They are not going to put their career in jeopardy to protect their job especially in the current media landscape in which journalist are constantly changing jobs.
      - raxxorrax 5y ago
        No, I don't think that sailing against the wind of contemporary newsrooms offers a promising career outlook. On the contrary.
      - bingohbangoh 5y ago
        How would they be found out? You harbor a personal resentment you believe to be true deep down and… people can read your mind and hold it against you for future jobs?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Can I really trust the NY Times to correctly report on this? Short answer: yes. > They have every interest to see Facebook, which increasingly acts as a gatekeeper to traditional new sites, to look and be as bad as possible. Long answer: that line of thinking is at the root of a lot of conspiracy theorizing, and it's got all kinds of flaws. For instance: you assume "they have every interest to see Facebook...look bad," but what about their other interests? You don't seem to have considered those.
- mikestew 5y ago
  They have every interest to see Facebook... [citation needed]. No, I don't want to hear an indirect rant about the financial interests of the NYT, nor do I care about some over-used quote from Upton Sinclair. It doesn't have to be a full-blown peer-reviewed citation, but just something, anything other than some unsupported, bordering-on-conspiracy theory. Because my response otherwise is: "no, they don't. They have every interest in being the "paper of record", and maintaining a reputation that will quickly be lost should the NYT be found telling whoppers to hurt what might be viewed as a competitor." There's a reason I subscribe to the NYT and not the NY Post.
dustractor 5y ago
“She didn’t know how basic stacks worked,” Sure, most programmers have at least heard of a stack, and some could tell you the name of an operation one might do to a stack, and quite a few could at least tell you the name of an algorithm that did said operation, but stack-based programming is kind of a niche domain so that sounds more like the thing a non-programmer would say to impress other non-programmers.
- thatguymike 5y ago
  The high-level tech stack, not the memory stack.
benjaminjosephw 5y ago
> “She didn’t know how basic stacks worked,” wrote one Facebook engineer, referring to a term used by the engineering team to describe how data is structured in computer programming. He said all of her testimony should be disqualified. I don't know what's funnier, the poor attempt to discredit her or the terrible reporting of it. The headwinds are indeed blowing against Facebook. Working there seems to be more of a career liability than something to be proud of.
tablespoon 5y ago
> “She didn’t know how basic stacks worked,” wrote one Facebook engineer, referring to a term used by the engineering team to describe how data is structured in computer programming. He said all of her testimony should be disqualified. This is a magnificent illustration of the bizarre arrogance some developers have about programming in relation to other disciplines (though usually not this ridiculous degree). Every software engineering and computer science program should have a "don't be that guy," module where this quote is studied.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tablespoon 5y ago
  In reply to a now deleted child comment, since I'd already finished writing it: >> “She didn’t know how basic stacks worked,” > Is it clear that the engineer is talking about the stack data structure vs. the tech stack? Yes, given the way the quote is phrased, it's a stretch beyond reason to interpret "basic stacks" as "tech stack." Furthermore, their comment would have still been clueless even if they were referring to "tech stacks." There's a lot of wrongness there to unpack, but one element is the assumption that low-level technical implementation knowledge is a requirement for a valid higher level understanding. That's as foolish as "disqualifying" biologists because they haven't passed a course in quantum mechanics. Whether this thing was built on the LAMP stack, something with Java, or some bespoke thing is completely irrelevant to understanding the effect it has on people and society, which is the only thing at issue here.
zthrowaway 5y ago
This “whistleblower” was propped up by the establishment, I would be worried too. There’s a shift in agenda here against FB.

Can I really trust the NY Times to correctly report on this? They have every interest to see Facebook, which increasingly acts as a gatekeeper to traditional new sites, to look and be as bad as possible. Edit: This isn't a value judgement on whether the NYTimes is better than Facebook or anything similar.

syspec 5y ago
Yes.
raxxorrax 5y ago
No, technically you cannot trust them, although I don't think they have reason to lie. Every successful supraregional newspaper today is dependent on Facebook and collaborates with it. To those that downvote you I would really hear your reason. My favorite high quality newspaper (non US) was transparent with that fact that direct collaboration is necessary for successful economic prospects. The paper said it can only promise to report objectively on Facebook, the dependence wasn't even disputed. I don't know exactly, but I would think it was at least 6-8 years ago. But I would argue that newspapers today try to establish themselves as authoritative sources. I think the problem Mrs Haugen tries to identify is far less dangerous than the proposed solution of a government institution consisting of former social media employees. That is ripe for special interest corruption. That is worse than some angry and angsty teenagers and even less democratic.
lithos 5y ago
Oh yeah, and after Facebook went down recently they probably saw how much better their numbers look without Facebook.
slg 5y ago
Do people not know how reporting works at a place like the NYT? The NYT does not act as a single institution with a single mind. There might be some institutional bias based off hiring practices, but individual reporters aren't going to be doing the company's dirty work like you are suggesting. The risk to their personal reputation is not worth protecting a company that might lay them off in 6 months.
- bingohbangoh 5y ago
  Sure they can, if they perceive Facebook as a threat they'll report negative things about them. Do people not value job security? "Never ask a man to do something against which his salary depends on" and all that.
  - slg 5y ago
    Job security is less important than career security. They are not going to put their career in jeopardy to protect their job especially in the current media landscape in which journalist are constantly changing jobs.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      No, I don't think that sailing against the wind of contemporary newsrooms offers a promising career outlook. On the contrary.
    - bingohbangoh 5y ago
      How would they be found out? You harbor a personal resentment you believe to be true deep down and… people can read your mind and hold it against you for future jobs?
tablespoon 5y ago
> Can I really trust the NY Times to correctly report on this? Short answer: yes. > They have every interest to see Facebook, which increasingly acts as a gatekeeper to traditional new sites, to look and be as bad as possible. Long answer: that line of thinking is at the root of a lot of conspiracy theorizing, and it's got all kinds of flaws. For instance: you assume "they have every interest to see Facebook...look bad," but what about their other interests? You don't seem to have considered those.
mikestew 5y ago
They have every interest to see Facebook... [citation needed]. No, I don't want to hear an indirect rant about the financial interests of the NYT, nor do I care about some over-used quote from Upton Sinclair. It doesn't have to be a full-blown peer-reviewed citation, but just something, anything other than some unsupported, bordering-on-conspiracy theory. Because my response otherwise is: "no, they don't. They have every interest in being the "paper of record", and maintaining a reputation that will quickly be lost should the NYT be found telling whoppers to hurt what might be viewed as a competitor." There's a reason I subscribe to the NYT and not the NY Post.

dustractor 5y ago

“She didn’t know how basic stacks worked,” Sure, most programmers have at least heard of a stack, and some could tell you the name of an operation one might do to a stack, and quite a few could at least tell you the name of an algorithm that did said operation, but stack-based programming is kind of a niche domain so that sounds more like the thing a non-programmer would say to impress other non-programmers.

thatguymike 5y ago
The high-level tech stack, not the memory stack.

benjaminjosephw 5y ago

> “She didn’t know how basic stacks worked,” wrote one Facebook engineer, referring to a term used by the engineering team to describe how data is structured in computer programming. He said all of her testimony should be disqualified. I don't know what's funnier, the poor attempt to discredit her or the terrible reporting of it. The headwinds are indeed blowing against Facebook. Working there seems to be more of a career liability than something to be proud of.

tablespoon 5y ago

> “She didn’t know how basic stacks worked,” wrote one Facebook engineer, referring to a term used by the engineering team to describe how data is structured in computer programming. He said all of her testimony should be disqualified. This is a magnificent illustration of the bizarre arrogance some developers have about programming in relation to other disciplines (though usually not this ridiculous degree). Every software engineering and computer science program should have a "don't be that guy," module where this quote is studied.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tablespoon 5y ago
In reply to a now deleted child comment, since I'd already finished writing it: >> “She didn’t know how basic stacks worked,” > Is it clear that the engineer is talking about the stack data structure vs. the tech stack? Yes, given the way the quote is phrased, it's a stretch beyond reason to interpret "basic stacks" as "tech stack." Furthermore, their comment would have still been clueless even if they were referring to "tech stacks." There's a lot of wrongness there to unpack, but one element is the assumption that low-level technical implementation knowledge is a requirement for a valid higher level understanding. That's as foolish as "disqualifying" biologists because they haven't passed a course in quantum mechanics. Whether this thing was built on the LAMP stack, something with Java, or some bespoke thing is completely irrelevant to understanding the effect it has on people and society, which is the only thing at issue here.

zthrowaway 5y ago

This “whistleblower” was propped up by the establishment, I would be worried too. There’s a shift in agenda here against FB.