13 ms·

The Facebook Papers: dozens of stories based on whistleblower docs dropped

176 points by kerng 5y ago

XoS-490 5y ago
6 days ago, FB said new leak was coming any time soon: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28909538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28909538
ampgt 5y ago
Wow, every paper linked to in this leans left. Fascinating. Someone is out for blood.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  Feel free to provide alternative sources.
- toiletfuneral 5y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out, we better wait till Breitbart and Ben Shapiro weigh in before assuming anything is wrong
- rp1 5y ago
  The Wall Street Journal leans left? I think you’re seeing what you want to see.
- asplake 5y ago
  FT, WSJ?
- dylan604 5y ago
  Those on the "left" are screaming about FB/social for one reason, those on the "right" are screaming about FB/social for another reason. If both sides are screaming, something must be going on. If you don't think anything is going on, then your head has been in the sand for too long. There are plenty of things to get upset about by the shenanigans of social platforms where ever you look. (unless your a stool for one of the platforms)
- chefkoch 5y ago
  Sure, Associated Press and Financial Times is left leaning.
- papito 5y ago
  Perhaps you should ask yourself why the sources that "lean right" are not reporting on this.
  - topspin 5y ago
    Except they are. Top Bongino story right now is "Report: Facebook Employees Tried to Suppress Conservative News Outlets" which links postmillennial's (Oct 24, 2021 8:17 PM EST) "Internal 'racial-justice' chat board shows Facebook staff wanting to censor Breitbart over coverage of BLM riots" which is a citation from WSJ's (series subtitle: The Facebook Files) "Facebook’s Internal Chat Boards Show Politics Often at Center of Decision Making." They're just not reporting the correct aspects of it? Or perhaps we're thinking their take simply doesn't qualify as 'reporting?' Otherwise they're definitely talking about it.
sharklazer 5y ago
Haugen isn’t a whistleblower. If I had my guess, she’s being paid by FB likely. Real whistleblowers go into exile or jail, not the hot seat before congress to advocated for exactly what FB has said it wants. Y’know, like Snowden, or Manning. The US I’ve come to realize is deeply Machiavellian.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  > Real whistleblowers go into exile or jail That's some errr, interesting gatekeeping you're doing there? Whistleblowing CAN have consequences, but it SHOULDN'T because they're revealing amoral behaviour kept secret. This is why whistleblower protection schemes are a thing pretty much everywhere, including for example anonymous crime reporting hotlines.
  - 8eye 5y ago
    your name ends up on a report for anonymous crime reporting hotlines. at least here in the pnw. it is said on a few different police websites. so even crime reporting hotlines don’t protect their whistleblowers
- notyourwork 5y ago
  > If I had my guess, she’s being paid by FB likely. Facebook is paying her to portray FB as a bad guy. I don’t follow the logic, what am I missing?
  - HamburgerEmoji 5y ago
    Well, the point of all this is for Facebook to censor a lot more stuff than it does now. Seems plausible to me that Zuckerberg wants that too, but to retain the appearance of having his hands tied by regulation.
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    facebook wants to play the role of poor tech company oppressed by regulation, but once social media reforms are legislated they’ll be the only company that can afford compliance.
sydthrowaway 5y ago
Yet again, a big nothingburger. Nothing to suggest FB has broken the law. Compare this to what old school media actually HAS done (phone hacking), this is simply the MSM trying to put the boot in.
- objclxt 5y ago
  > Nothing to suggest FB has broken the law I don't know what rock you've been under, but just this week Facebook has been accused of illegal collusion with Google[1] *and* illegally ignoring competition authorities when completing its Giphy acquisition. [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-google-team-up-against-apples-user-privacy-2021-10?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-google-team-up-agai... [2]: https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/20/22736236/facebook-giphy-uk-cma-fine https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/20/22736236/facebook-giphy-...
- dboreham 5y ago
  They may not have broken "the law" but they _did_ break the US political system (not to say it was perfect beforehand...).
  - jensensbutton 5y ago
    Citation needed.
- Applejinx 5y ago
  I would be interested in whether they took an active role in the Jan 6 insurgency. I think it's well established that they'll take money from whoever, and then work for them with great determination. I don't think they have any INTEREST in the law, and spying on just plain citizens and consumers is the least of the things they've been up to. All it takes is them going, 'hey this administration is going to get in the way of a revenue stream, we've been getting good money to facilitate what some customers want' (i.e. revolution, genocide, etc) And then 'we should make ourselves available to these groups, to disrupt the administration that might hold us accountable. If they get hurt, so what? They are against us' Look back to Cambridge Analytica. Facebook can serve to overthrow the government… any government… if their influence is profound enough. They've got control and have done studies on what they're able to do, and it's not unthinkable that they are doubling down rather than be brought to account. They rightly see themselves as a key player here. They're the megaphone to be used by state powers and revolutionists, in many countries including at home. My gut reaction is that this is really the tip of the iceberg, and what they're really up to is on a very large scope. If you found you had the Panopticon and could swing any election, flip any issue, what would you do? Then consider it's Mark, in sole control of all this, and the same guy he's been all this time. I don't think he delights in destroying people. But the guy is purely self-interested and is just being a paper clip maximizer, the paper clips being 'power as he has been able to wield it'.
jazzyjackson 5y ago
all the facebook crisis news gives me “the fix is in” vibes
inshadows 5y ago
Let me guess. New breathtaking stories about refusal to censor more speech.
hbn 5y ago
I can't help but think this "whistleblowing" is only good for Facebook's bottom line. I haven't seen anything pop up that's shocking or needed an internal person to be leaking it -- "it's bad for kids," "they don't censor enough hate speech," etc. It just seems to me that it's setting up for a bunch of new legislation that only allows section 230 protection if platforms implement a ton of moderation that only the existing, big player platforms could possibly keep up with, ensuring that smaller platforms (or ones that don't want to censor as much) could never hope to exist. Facebook gets to censor more, keeping controversial stuff off their site, and they don't even take the blame because "it's the law," PLUS all potential competition is gone. Sounds great for Zuck!
- nimbius 5y ago
  as a US citizen, both chambers of congress want to torpedo social media giants like Facebook and Twitter but for differing reasons. Democrats: because its tangibly harmful to children and spreads deleterious hatred. Republicans: because it has a well established anticonservative bias that in retrospect contributed measurably to their presidential loss in 2020. Facebook however has done a masterful job resisting legislation through congressional dog and pony shows, social engineering, and slight of hand. Without tangible evidence, policy cant really be drafted and the playbook from big oil for climate change is exactly the kind of interference run Facebook is employing here. Make it difficult to discern what, if any 'harm' Facebook does that cannot be assigned to "personal responsibility." The leaks however do irreparable damage to the thesis of the 'curiously confusing' good facebook by nailing down actual conditions in time.
  - josefresco 5y ago
    > Republicans: because it has a well established anticonservative bias Except, that's not reality: https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10 https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      It doesn't need to be real to be somebody's motivation.
colechristensen 5y ago
Is any of this news? None of it seems like “whistleblowing”. Facebook is old and not very good at the content moderation / censorship balance. Yep. Seems like a lot of people want to be edgy and hate facebook without ideas on how to do things better (unless those ideas are pretty extreme censorship favoring a specific ideology). Facebook is doing somewhat of a bad job but still people are trying to use it as a scapegoat for perfectly normal shitty human behavior which finds a way to exist regardless.
- yodsanklai 5y ago
  > not very good at the content moderation / censorship balance I'd say that considering how hard this problem is (technologically and ethically), they're doing quite well. It's funny how they are blamed by both free speech advocates and by those who ask for more censorship. No wonder everybody hates them. It's a battle that they can't win.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    You can be doing a bad job in both directions at the same time. Facebook is like advertising free heroin and punishing people who get addicted. They promote content that takes advantage of human weaknesses and then sometimes arbitrarily ban certain things unevenly. It is also why they lose people, they have been optimizing for the “most popular” for so long that they continually drive away people and are left with mostly addicts for whom the most popular gets worse and worse. They could win, it wouldn’t be that difficult, but they would have to significantly change their motivations and behaviors.
    - whitepaint 5y ago
      > They could win, it wouldn’t be that difficult If they are doing such a horrible job and they could easily change and become better, why there haven't been actual competitors for so long then? You seem to have solutions, you should work on them or at least share them.
      - 5y ago
numair 5y ago
Look beyond the politics to see the real power of what Haugen has done: she’s provided conclusive evidence that these people knew their products were bad for kids. Some of you will say “okay but there’s also a large percentage on the other side!” — alright, so, you think it’s cool to play roulette with peoples’ kids’ mental health? “Some of you will be anorexic and secretly suicidal, but a bunch of you will be happy, and all of you fit the target demo we need for our ad clients, so... into the cauldron, all of you!” Don’t you realize how depraved the whole thing is? I don’t have to convince the crowd here of this, because the data this woman leaked showed us something remarkable: while the supposedly-smart people who work in this industry don’t think the way Facebook makes kids feel is important, guess who cares? The kids! And they’re abandoning the company, or avoiding it like that kid in their class who tried to get them to try meth! The game is up, and Facebook is culturally incapable of figuring out what to do about it. The leaked memos are straight-up comic book idiot-villain material. This truly is the beginning of the end for Facebook. I was there at the beginning, at a time very few were paying attention to the fact that this was the beginning of something big. Now we are all here at the end, and very few are paying attention to the fact that this is the end of something big.
- newaccount2021 5y ago
  Haugen is nothing but Tipper Gore for the web era. An enlightened intellectual who will save us from ourselves! Rap music will rot your brain <-> social media will rot your brain And yet people kept liking rap music and society didn't implode Haugen will get her small victory in a "Parental Advisory" banner at the top of FB and society will keep enjoying social media...and smoking...and drinking...and cheeseburgers...and driving fast...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jensensbutton 5y ago
  Another way to think of it is she ensured none of the social media giants today (YouTube, TikTok, Snap) or those that come after will do this research.
PaulAJ 5y ago
Did anyone else find this headline confusing? To me a "dropped story" means that an editor decided not to publish it.
Tepix 5y ago
Regarding treating certain accounts differently: The Right Thing to do would be to hide the name of the user from the policy team when they consider bans.
annadane 5y ago
In this thread: Facebook employees desperately trying to shape the narrative Look, I'd be as happy as anyone if this all did turn out to be 'nothing'. It would be a much more pleasant world. But it's kind of obvious that with this crowd, the tech entrepreneur crowd, it's a terrible website to have certain discussions about, because industry folks will defend industry no matter what (which is not to say this always happens, there are appropriately critical comments, but come on)
- mypastself 5y ago
  I don’t personally use any Facebook products (although I am sometimes required to use its APIs profesionally), in part because I find their business model and practices ethically questionable, and the products’ utility low. I’ve yet to come across any kind of legal “smoking gun” in any of these reports. Click through some of the non-paywalled links and you’ll see how little of substance there truly is in the majority of cases. The company is losing market dominance? They were grappling with whether or not to remove the “like” button? Even the seemingly major bombshells, like “facilitating ethnic cleansing”, are not supported by any sources or data present in the text.
  - annadane 5y ago
    That's more than fair.
throwawaysea 5y ago
Is there some resource that lists out all these different stories or a timeline of them even going back before the recent whistleblower stories from WSJ? I feel like it is hard to hold onto the context of these companies' overall track record over a longer period of time. The reason I ask this, is I feel like these stories will enter public conscience and quickly fade away without any accountability or changes. Same for Google with the recent allegations from the court filing.
balozi 5y ago
Offensive Leak Strategy: Leak something, leak often. After awhile few will care about what you are hiding.
dang 5y ago
Lists don't make good HN submissions—they're too generic. The only thing to discuss is the lowest common denominator of the items on the list, and that's usually some very general topic about which there's nothing particularly new to say. It's better to post the most interesting item on the list. That increases the chance that there's something specific to talk about. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=denominator%20list%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
- r721 5y ago
  Some links were submitted already: The Financial Times https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986601 (83 comments) The Atlantic 2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28987133 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28987133 (9 comments) Politico https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28987591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28987591 The Atlantic 1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986688 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986688 The Verge https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986512 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986512 The New York Times https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986614 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986614 CNN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28972584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28972584

176 points by kerng 5y ago

6 days ago, FB said new leak was coming any time soon: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28909538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28909538

ampgt 5y ago

Wow, every paper linked to in this leans left. Fascinating. Someone is out for blood.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
Feel free to provide alternative sources.
toiletfuneral 5y ago
Thanks for pointing that out, we better wait till Breitbart and Ben Shapiro weigh in before assuming anything is wrong
rp1 5y ago
The Wall Street Journal leans left? I think you’re seeing what you want to see.
asplake 5y ago
FT, WSJ?
dylan604 5y ago
Those on the "left" are screaming about FB/social for one reason, those on the "right" are screaming about FB/social for another reason. If both sides are screaming, something must be going on. If you don't think anything is going on, then your head has been in the sand for too long. There are plenty of things to get upset about by the shenanigans of social platforms where ever you look. (unless your a stool for one of the platforms)
chefkoch 5y ago
Sure, Associated Press and Financial Times is left leaning.
papito 5y ago
Perhaps you should ask yourself why the sources that "lean right" are not reporting on this.
- topspin 5y ago
  Except they are. Top Bongino story right now is "Report: Facebook Employees Tried to Suppress Conservative News Outlets" which links postmillennial's (Oct 24, 2021 8:17 PM EST) "Internal 'racial-justice' chat board shows Facebook staff wanting to censor Breitbart over coverage of BLM riots" which is a citation from WSJ's (series subtitle: The Facebook Files) "Facebook’s Internal Chat Boards Show Politics Often at Center of Decision Making." They're just not reporting the correct aspects of it? Or perhaps we're thinking their take simply doesn't qualify as 'reporting?' Otherwise they're definitely talking about it.

sharklazer 5y ago

Haugen isn’t a whistleblower. If I had my guess, she’s being paid by FB likely. Real whistleblowers go into exile or jail, not the hot seat before congress to advocated for exactly what FB has said it wants. Y’know, like Snowden, or Manning. The US I’ve come to realize is deeply Machiavellian.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
> Real whistleblowers go into exile or jail That's some errr, interesting gatekeeping you're doing there? Whistleblowing CAN have consequences, but it SHOULDN'T because they're revealing amoral behaviour kept secret. This is why whistleblower protection schemes are a thing pretty much everywhere, including for example anonymous crime reporting hotlines.
- 8eye 5y ago
  your name ends up on a report for anonymous crime reporting hotlines. at least here in the pnw. it is said on a few different police websites. so even crime reporting hotlines don’t protect their whistleblowers
notyourwork 5y ago
> If I had my guess, she’s being paid by FB likely. Facebook is paying her to portray FB as a bad guy. I don’t follow the logic, what am I missing?
- HamburgerEmoji 5y ago
  Well, the point of all this is for Facebook to censor a lot more stuff than it does now. Seems plausible to me that Zuckerberg wants that too, but to retain the appearance of having his hands tied by regulation.
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  facebook wants to play the role of poor tech company oppressed by regulation, but once social media reforms are legislated they’ll be the only company that can afford compliance.

sydthrowaway 5y ago

Yet again, a big nothingburger. Nothing to suggest FB has broken the law. Compare this to what old school media actually HAS done (phone hacking), this is simply the MSM trying to put the boot in.

objclxt 5y ago
> Nothing to suggest FB has broken the law I don't know what rock you've been under, but just this week Facebook has been accused of illegal collusion with Google[1] *and* illegally ignoring competition authorities when completing its Giphy acquisition. [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-google-team-up-against-apples-user-privacy-2021-10?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-google-team-up-agai... [2]: https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/20/22736236/facebook-giphy-uk-cma-fine https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/20/22736236/facebook-giphy-...
dboreham 5y ago
They may not have broken "the law" but they _did_ break the US political system (not to say it was perfect beforehand...).
- jensensbutton 5y ago
  Citation needed.
Applejinx 5y ago
I would be interested in whether they took an active role in the Jan 6 insurgency. I think it's well established that they'll take money from whoever, and then work for them with great determination. I don't think they have any INTEREST in the law, and spying on just plain citizens and consumers is the least of the things they've been up to. All it takes is them going, 'hey this administration is going to get in the way of a revenue stream, we've been getting good money to facilitate what some customers want' (i.e. revolution, genocide, etc) And then 'we should make ourselves available to these groups, to disrupt the administration that might hold us accountable. If they get hurt, so what? They are against us' Look back to Cambridge Analytica. Facebook can serve to overthrow the government… any government… if their influence is profound enough. They've got control and have done studies on what they're able to do, and it's not unthinkable that they are doubling down rather than be brought to account. They rightly see themselves as a key player here. They're the megaphone to be used by state powers and revolutionists, in many countries including at home. My gut reaction is that this is really the tip of the iceberg, and what they're really up to is on a very large scope. If you found you had the Panopticon and could swing any election, flip any issue, what would you do? Then consider it's Mark, in sole control of all this, and the same guy he's been all this time. I don't think he delights in destroying people. But the guy is purely self-interested and is just being a paper clip maximizer, the paper clips being 'power as he has been able to wield it'.

jazzyjackson 5y ago

all the facebook crisis news gives me “the fix is in” vibes

inshadows 5y ago

Let me guess. New breathtaking stories about refusal to censor more speech.

hbn 5y ago

I can't help but think this "whistleblowing" is only good for Facebook's bottom line. I haven't seen anything pop up that's shocking or needed an internal person to be leaking it -- "it's bad for kids," "they don't censor enough hate speech," etc. It just seems to me that it's setting up for a bunch of new legislation that only allows section 230 protection if platforms implement a ton of moderation that only the existing, big player platforms could possibly keep up with, ensuring that smaller platforms (or ones that don't want to censor as much) could never hope to exist. Facebook gets to censor more, keeping controversial stuff off their site, and they don't even take the blame because "it's the law," PLUS all potential competition is gone. Sounds great for Zuck!

nimbius 5y ago
as a US citizen, both chambers of congress want to torpedo social media giants like Facebook and Twitter but for differing reasons. Democrats: because its tangibly harmful to children and spreads deleterious hatred. Republicans: because it has a well established anticonservative bias that in retrospect contributed measurably to their presidential loss in 2020. Facebook however has done a masterful job resisting legislation through congressional dog and pony shows, social engineering, and slight of hand. Without tangible evidence, policy cant really be drafted and the playbook from big oil for climate change is exactly the kind of interference run Facebook is employing here. Make it difficult to discern what, if any 'harm' Facebook does that cannot be assigned to "personal responsibility." The leaks however do irreparable damage to the thesis of the 'curiously confusing' good facebook by nailing down actual conditions in time.
- josefresco 5y ago
  > Republicans: because it has a well established anticonservative bias Except, that's not reality: https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10 https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    It doesn't need to be real to be somebody's motivation.

colechristensen 5y ago

Is any of this news? None of it seems like “whistleblowing”. Facebook is old and not very good at the content moderation / censorship balance. Yep. Seems like a lot of people want to be edgy and hate facebook without ideas on how to do things better (unless those ideas are pretty extreme censorship favoring a specific ideology). Facebook is doing somewhat of a bad job but still people are trying to use it as a scapegoat for perfectly normal shitty human behavior which finds a way to exist regardless.

yodsanklai 5y ago
> not very good at the content moderation / censorship balance I'd say that considering how hard this problem is (technologically and ethically), they're doing quite well. It's funny how they are blamed by both free speech advocates and by those who ask for more censorship. No wonder everybody hates them. It's a battle that they can't win.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  You can be doing a bad job in both directions at the same time. Facebook is like advertising free heroin and punishing people who get addicted. They promote content that takes advantage of human weaknesses and then sometimes arbitrarily ban certain things unevenly. It is also why they lose people, they have been optimizing for the “most popular” for so long that they continually drive away people and are left with mostly addicts for whom the most popular gets worse and worse. They could win, it wouldn’t be that difficult, but they would have to significantly change their motivations and behaviors.
  - whitepaint 5y ago
    > They could win, it wouldn’t be that difficult If they are doing such a horrible job and they could easily change and become better, why there haven't been actual competitors for so long then? You seem to have solutions, you should work on them or at least share them.
    - 5y ago

numair 5y ago

Look beyond the politics to see the real power of what Haugen has done: she’s provided conclusive evidence that these people knew their products were bad for kids. Some of you will say “okay but there’s also a large percentage on the other side!” — alright, so, you think it’s cool to play roulette with peoples’ kids’ mental health? “Some of you will be anorexic and secretly suicidal, but a bunch of you will be happy, and all of you fit the target demo we need for our ad clients, so... into the cauldron, all of you!” Don’t you realize how depraved the whole thing is? I don’t have to convince the crowd here of this, because the data this woman leaked showed us something remarkable: while the supposedly-smart people who work in this industry don’t think the way Facebook makes kids feel is important, guess who cares? The kids! And they’re abandoning the company, or avoiding it like that kid in their class who tried to get them to try meth! The game is up, and Facebook is culturally incapable of figuring out what to do about it. The leaked memos are straight-up comic book idiot-villain material. This truly is the beginning of the end for Facebook. I was there at the beginning, at a time very few were paying attention to the fact that this was the beginning of something big. Now we are all here at the end, and very few are paying attention to the fact that this is the end of something big.

newaccount2021 5y ago
Haugen is nothing but Tipper Gore for the web era. An enlightened intellectual who will save us from ourselves! Rap music will rot your brain <-> social media will rot your brain And yet people kept liking rap music and society didn't implode Haugen will get her small victory in a "Parental Advisory" banner at the top of FB and society will keep enjoying social media...and smoking...and drinking...and cheeseburgers...and driving fast...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jensensbutton 5y ago
Another way to think of it is she ensured none of the social media giants today (YouTube, TikTok, Snap) or those that come after will do this research.

PaulAJ 5y ago

Did anyone else find this headline confusing? To me a "dropped story" means that an editor decided not to publish it.

Tepix 5y ago

Regarding treating certain accounts differently: The Right Thing to do would be to hide the name of the user from the policy team when they consider bans.

annadane 5y ago

In this thread: Facebook employees desperately trying to shape the narrative Look, I'd be as happy as anyone if this all did turn out to be 'nothing'. It would be a much more pleasant world. But it's kind of obvious that with this crowd, the tech entrepreneur crowd, it's a terrible website to have certain discussions about, because industry folks will defend industry no matter what (which is not to say this always happens, there are appropriately critical comments, but come on)

mypastself 5y ago
I don’t personally use any Facebook products (although I am sometimes required to use its APIs profesionally), in part because I find their business model and practices ethically questionable, and the products’ utility low. I’ve yet to come across any kind of legal “smoking gun” in any of these reports. Click through some of the non-paywalled links and you’ll see how little of substance there truly is in the majority of cases. The company is losing market dominance? They were grappling with whether or not to remove the “like” button? Even the seemingly major bombshells, like “facilitating ethnic cleansing”, are not supported by any sources or data present in the text.
- annadane 5y ago
  That's more than fair.

throwawaysea 5y ago

Is there some resource that lists out all these different stories or a timeline of them even going back before the recent whistleblower stories from WSJ? I feel like it is hard to hold onto the context of these companies' overall track record over a longer period of time. The reason I ask this, is I feel like these stories will enter public conscience and quickly fade away without any accountability or changes. Same for Google with the recent allegations from the court filing.

balozi 5y ago

Offensive Leak Strategy: Leak something, leak often. After awhile few will care about what you are hiding.

dang 5y ago

Lists don't make good HN submissions—they're too generic. The only thing to discuss is the lowest common denominator of the items on the list, and that's usually some very general topic about which there's nothing particularly new to say. It's better to post the most interesting item on the list. That increases the chance that there's something specific to talk about. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=denominator%20list%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

r721 5y ago
Some links were submitted already: The Financial Times https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986601 (83 comments) The Atlantic 2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28987133 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28987133 (9 comments) Politico https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28987591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28987591 The Atlantic 1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986688 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986688 The Verge https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986512 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986512 The New York Times https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986614 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986614 CNN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28972584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28972584