7 ms·

On the popularity of Haugen: I find it amusing how your government treats a whistleblower who is promoting government control over social media, vs the way your

On the popularity of Haugen: I find it amusing how your government treats a whistleblower who is promoting government control over social media, vs the way your government treats a whistleblower who leaks evidence of government spying and abuse. The fact that Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are treated the way they are (and the earlier treatment of Manning) gives the US government zero credibility on press freedom, social media legislation or anything remotely related to privacy. EDIT: Furthermore according to the FBI it's ok for Hillary Clinton to keep government communication explicitly marked classified in her basement server because no harm is intended, whereas others have been prosecuted in the absence of intended harm. The optics are absolutely terrible on these issues. If I can speak for some of the folks in the rest of the world, we're laughing and shaking our heads.

aero-glide2 5y ago
I cannot trust the media anymore, they are crazy and they are making me go crazy.
AlexB138 5y ago
> I find it amusing how your government treats a whistleblower who is promoting government control over social media, vs the way your government treats a whistleblower who leaks evidence of government spying and abuse. That is because e.g. Snowden is actually a whistleblower, warning the people against the powers that be, and Haugen is an activist pushing for an agenda which aligns with what the powers that be want, making her a useful political pawn.
- fareesh 5y ago
  Yes pretty much this. It's transparent and laughable.
- rhcom2 5y ago
  Snowden is an activist pushing for an agenda too. Sure, one we agree with and seems ethical but it's still an agenda. Side note, when did "activist" become a dirty word?
  - JohnWhigham 5y ago
    When their political opinions are opposite to mine
  - wanderer2323 5y ago
    When it became so vague that one does not have to really do anything to call themselves an 'activist'.
marcinzm 5y ago
>The optics are absolutely terrible on these issues. If I can speak for some of the folks in the rest of the world, we're laughing and shaking our heads. I can't think of a large government that doesn't protect its interests and those of the elite above others. In my experience people tend to have a blind spot for how their own government functions versus other governments.
- paisawalla 5y ago
  This makes sense if your analysis is of bureaucrats and the administrative state. But it doesn't explain why individual, elected representatives wouldn't be unable to express a respect for the release of true-yet-damning information.
  - marcinzm 5y ago
    Why do you assume the politicians or their parties didn't already know most of what is going even if unofficially? Politicians are around for a while usually and political parties stick around even longer. They also often want to ensure they get a nice cushy post-retirement gig somewhere. Damning yourself is generally not a good move.
- fareesh 5y ago
  My government is far worse, but it doesn't grandstand in public hearings the way the US Congress does.
Joool 5y ago
> On the popularity of Haugen: I find it amusing how your government treats a whistleblower who is promoting government control over social media, vs the way your government treats a whistleblower who leaks evidence of government spying and abuse. Well one of them leaked documents of said government, the other company secrets.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
On one hand are whistleblowers to the American public against the U.S. government. On the other hand, a whistleblower to the American public and U.S. government. Not sure why one would expect them to be received similarly.
- fareesh 5y ago
  Would the judiciary (branch of government) consider Haugen to be in violation of any NDAs that she had with Facebook?
  - s17n 5y ago
    In general, leaking a company's secrets is going to be a civil matter, and to the extent that it's a criminal case a prosecutor would be very unlikely to press charges if the company isn't asking them to. On the other hand leaking classified government secrets is always a criminal matter and charges are almost always going to be pressed.
    - fareesh 5y ago
      Yes, but my point here largely rests on the literal definition of the word "whistleblower" itself and how the use of that word, and who uses that word, impacts how issues are framed. The US Government has, in a seemingly bipartisan fashion, pre-emptively branded Haugen a whistleblower. They've used the word before any debate over whether or not this is a whistleblower, has taken place. This person is assumed to be acting for the public good. Manning, Snowden and Assange were not afforded that presumption. Instead they are first presumed to be guilty of revealing state secrets. They are not presumed to be acting for the public good. Presumption of innocence for those who serve the government's interests. Presumption of guilt for those who expose the government's wrongdoings.
helen___keller 5y ago
> Furthermore according to the FBI it's ok for Hillary Clinton to keep government communication explicitly marked classified in her basement server because no harm is intended, whereas others have been prosecuted in the absence of intended harm What exactly does this have to do with the topic? Your first paragraphs are talking about treatment of whistleblowers and Hillary Clinton is (obviously) not a whistleblower. Adding in a Clinton dig just adds political derailment to the topic for no particular reason.
- paisawalla 5y ago
  He's anticipating the objection re Snowden. You have to be angry about the fact that the information he released makes the govt look bad, and not just the fact of improper process, a la Clinton. Therefore, the treatment of whistleblowers really does depend on who's hand they're strengthening -- the govt or someone else's -- and not a generalized respect for the truth.
  - helen___keller 5y ago
    > Therefore, the treatment of whistleblowers really does depend on who's hand they're strengthening -- the govt or someone else's -- and not a generalized respect for the truth This is a very easy argument to make without resorting to political derailment, especially since it's basically a founding principle of our country (separation of powers, because we can't trust governing entities to police themselves, therefore competing and opposed government entities must effectively 'police' each other).
    - paisawalla 5y ago
      Sure, but 1. a lot of people also find that entire situation to be such incredible bullshit 2. the counterargument discredits itself when it employs the mental gymnastics needed to explain that inconsistency
      - helen___keller 5y ago
JulianMorrison 5y ago
Haugen is making a point which is distinct from "government control over social media". Her point is that FB is knowingly algorithmically delivering content that makes them a profit by creating "engagement", through amplifying whatever riles people up, which is known to include hate, violence, and untrue conspiracies. It it not a neutral public message board.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tayistay 5y ago
How smug. Do you actually think that your government, whatever that is, would just welcome someone who rightly divulged government secrets?
nonameiguess 5y ago
For better or worse, there are different prescribed legal procedures with their own protections for whistleblowing that involves classified information. You're supposed to leak that to Congressional oversight committees with security clearances, not the press. There is an obvious weakness here if you don't trust Congress itself, but that is still the law. As for Clinton, the issue there as I understand it isn't so much "intended harm." There are simply different consequences for intentional versus unintentional data spills.

aero-glide2 5y ago

I cannot trust the media anymore, they are crazy and they are making me go crazy.

AlexB138 5y ago

> I find it amusing how your government treats a whistleblower who is promoting government control over social media, vs the way your government treats a whistleblower who leaks evidence of government spying and abuse. That is because e.g. Snowden is actually a whistleblower, warning the people against the powers that be, and Haugen is an activist pushing for an agenda which aligns with what the powers that be want, making her a useful political pawn.

fareesh 5y ago
Yes pretty much this. It's transparent and laughable.
rhcom2 5y ago
Snowden is an activist pushing for an agenda too. Sure, one we agree with and seems ethical but it's still an agenda. Side note, when did "activist" become a dirty word?
- JohnWhigham 5y ago
  When their political opinions are opposite to mine
- wanderer2323 5y ago
  When it became so vague that one does not have to really do anything to call themselves an 'activist'.

marcinzm 5y ago

>The optics are absolutely terrible on these issues. If I can speak for some of the folks in the rest of the world, we're laughing and shaking our heads. I can't think of a large government that doesn't protect its interests and those of the elite above others. In my experience people tend to have a blind spot for how their own government functions versus other governments.

paisawalla 5y ago
This makes sense if your analysis is of bureaucrats and the administrative state. But it doesn't explain why individual, elected representatives wouldn't be unable to express a respect for the release of true-yet-damning information.
- marcinzm 5y ago
  Why do you assume the politicians or their parties didn't already know most of what is going even if unofficially? Politicians are around for a while usually and political parties stick around even longer. They also often want to ensure they get a nice cushy post-retirement gig somewhere. Damning yourself is generally not a good move.
fareesh 5y ago
My government is far worse, but it doesn't grandstand in public hearings the way the US Congress does.

Joool 5y ago

> On the popularity of Haugen: I find it amusing how your government treats a whistleblower who is promoting government control over social media, vs the way your government treats a whistleblower who leaks evidence of government spying and abuse. Well one of them leaked documents of said government, the other company secrets.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

On one hand are whistleblowers to the American public against the U.S. government. On the other hand, a whistleblower to the American public and U.S. government. Not sure why one would expect them to be received similarly.

fareesh 5y ago
Would the judiciary (branch of government) consider Haugen to be in violation of any NDAs that she had with Facebook?
- s17n 5y ago
  In general, leaking a company's secrets is going to be a civil matter, and to the extent that it's a criminal case a prosecutor would be very unlikely to press charges if the company isn't asking them to. On the other hand leaking classified government secrets is always a criminal matter and charges are almost always going to be pressed.
  - fareesh 5y ago
    Yes, but my point here largely rests on the literal definition of the word "whistleblower" itself and how the use of that word, and who uses that word, impacts how issues are framed. The US Government has, in a seemingly bipartisan fashion, pre-emptively branded Haugen a whistleblower. They've used the word before any debate over whether or not this is a whistleblower, has taken place. This person is assumed to be acting for the public good. Manning, Snowden and Assange were not afforded that presumption. Instead they are first presumed to be guilty of revealing state secrets. They are not presumed to be acting for the public good. Presumption of innocence for those who serve the government's interests. Presumption of guilt for those who expose the government's wrongdoings.

helen___keller 5y ago

> Furthermore according to the FBI it's ok for Hillary Clinton to keep government communication explicitly marked classified in her basement server because no harm is intended, whereas others have been prosecuted in the absence of intended harm What exactly does this have to do with the topic? Your first paragraphs are talking about treatment of whistleblowers and Hillary Clinton is (obviously) not a whistleblower. Adding in a Clinton dig just adds political derailment to the topic for no particular reason.

paisawalla 5y ago
He's anticipating the objection re Snowden. You have to be angry about the fact that the information he released makes the govt look bad, and not just the fact of improper process, a la Clinton. Therefore, the treatment of whistleblowers really does depend on who's hand they're strengthening -- the govt or someone else's -- and not a generalized respect for the truth.
- helen___keller 5y ago
  > Therefore, the treatment of whistleblowers really does depend on who's hand they're strengthening -- the govt or someone else's -- and not a generalized respect for the truth This is a very easy argument to make without resorting to political derailment, especially since it's basically a founding principle of our country (separation of powers, because we can't trust governing entities to police themselves, therefore competing and opposed government entities must effectively 'police' each other).
  - paisawalla 5y ago
    Sure, but 1. a lot of people also find that entire situation to be such incredible bullshit 2. the counterargument discredits itself when it employs the mental gymnastics needed to explain that inconsistency
    - helen___keller 5y ago

JulianMorrison 5y ago

Haugen is making a point which is distinct from "government control over social media". Her point is that FB is knowingly algorithmically delivering content that makes them a profit by creating "engagement", through amplifying whatever riles people up, which is known to include hate, violence, and untrue conspiracies. It it not a neutral public message board.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tayistay 5y ago

How smug. Do you actually think that your government, whatever that is, would just welcome someone who rightly divulged government secrets?

nonameiguess 5y ago

For better or worse, there are different prescribed legal procedures with their own protections for whistleblowing that involves classified information. You're supposed to leak that to Congressional oversight committees with security clearances, not the press. There is an obvious weakness here if you don't trust Congress itself, but that is still the law. As for Clinton, the issue there as I understand it isn't so much "intended harm." There are simply different consequences for intentional versus unintentional data spills.