3 ms·

Facebook Whistleblower Haugen’s Patent Filings Might Raise Eyebrows

7 points by tomohawk 5y ago

flerovium 5y ago
I know you aren't supposed to accuse someone of "schilling", but this article repeats verbatim Facebook's criticism of the whistleblower. "We shouldn't make any rash moves to overregulate..."
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Remember, though, that patents often overstate. The patent makes it look like content filtering is a solved problem (solved by the patent, in fact). In the real world, it's often not that simple. The patent matter makes some aspect of the problem better, but it's almost always not a silver bullet, no matter how the patent text makes it sound.
toast0 5y ago
> Is Haugen a hypocrite that knew exactly how to fix Facebook’s problems and did little to sway the company during her tenure? I haven't seen any of Haugen's testimony, but how is it hypocritical of her to have deep knowledge about this stuff, tried to make the company better from the inside, and then turn to outside means after being frustrated by lack of change? Disclosure: I worked at WhatsApp until 2019.
neilk 5y ago
This is nonsense. Patents are filed by large technology companies as part of the cost of doing business. Pretty much after you do any research or release any project, the legal department will ask you if anything you did could be patentable and then they file a claim. All this proves is that Haugen worked on some significant projects at Google related to filtering social media content. If anything it boosts her claim to expertise. The headline for this post is an embarassment. "Might raise eyebrows" is the dodgiest way of raising a dodgy claim. No one is quoted as saying these patents cast any doubt on her credibility.
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  The most frustrating aspect of articles like these, to me, is the presence of the implication that the author actually understands the issue at hand, hidden away in the final few paragraphs. This article serves as an almost paradigmatic example: >"How to interpret these insights will ultimately depend on your opinions of Frances Haugen and Facebook. Is Haugen a hypocrite that knew exactly how to fix Facebook’s problems and did little to sway the company during her tenure?" Well, there's not really too much evidence here toward that conclusion-- >"Or is she a frustrated subject matter expert trying to effect change for the greater good of society? Let us know what you think in the comments." Ah, I see.
  - neilk 5y ago
    Here are some irrelevant facts, now please fight among yourselves about emotional judgments
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I don't think the claim is dodgy at all. She advocates for a governmental body consisting of former social media employees to act as a content control mechanism. That is dodgy, extremely so. Maybe she did work on censoring tools and was held back by management, who knows, but it is still dodgy. Maybe I am lost in translation here, but I think it extremely sketchy.

7 points by tomohawk 5y ago

I know you aren't supposed to accuse someone of "schilling", but this article repeats verbatim Facebook's criticism of the whistleblower. "We shouldn't make any rash moves to overregulate..."

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

Remember, though, that patents often overstate. The patent makes it look like content filtering is a solved problem (solved by the patent, in fact). In the real world, it's often not that simple. The patent matter makes some aspect of the problem better, but it's almost always not a silver bullet, no matter how the patent text makes it sound.

toast0 5y ago

> Is Haugen a hypocrite that knew exactly how to fix Facebook’s problems and did little to sway the company during her tenure? I haven't seen any of Haugen's testimony, but how is it hypocritical of her to have deep knowledge about this stuff, tried to make the company better from the inside, and then turn to outside means after being frustrated by lack of change? Disclosure: I worked at WhatsApp until 2019.

neilk 5y ago

This is nonsense. Patents are filed by large technology companies as part of the cost of doing business. Pretty much after you do any research or release any project, the legal department will ask you if anything you did could be patentable and then they file a claim. All this proves is that Haugen worked on some significant projects at Google related to filtering social media content. If anything it boosts her claim to expertise. The headline for this post is an embarassment. "Might raise eyebrows" is the dodgiest way of raising a dodgy claim. No one is quoted as saying these patents cast any doubt on her credibility.

revolvingocelot 5y ago
The most frustrating aspect of articles like these, to me, is the presence of the implication that the author actually understands the issue at hand, hidden away in the final few paragraphs. This article serves as an almost paradigmatic example: >"How to interpret these insights will ultimately depend on your opinions of Frances Haugen and Facebook. Is Haugen a hypocrite that knew exactly how to fix Facebook’s problems and did little to sway the company during her tenure?" Well, there's not really too much evidence here toward that conclusion-- >"Or is she a frustrated subject matter expert trying to effect change for the greater good of society? Let us know what you think in the comments." Ah, I see.
- neilk 5y ago
  Here are some irrelevant facts, now please fight among yourselves about emotional judgments
raxxorrax 5y ago
I don't think the claim is dodgy at all. She advocates for a governmental body consisting of former social media employees to act as a content control mechanism. That is dodgy, extremely so. Maybe she did work on censoring tools and was held back by management, who knows, but it is still dodgy. Maybe I am lost in translation here, but I think it extremely sketchy.