4 ms·

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 p

by 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.

by neilk 5y ago

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.