3 ms·

1) I don't know the answer to how much or how little FB censors, that's such a complicated thing and I'm not sure if anyone has a good sense of where FB is mate

1) I don't know the answer to how much or how little FB censors, that's such a complicated thing and I'm not sure if anyone has a good sense of where FB is materially doing. Of course it's an impossible problem anyhow. Either way - I believe voices on FB do have a lot of power. I felt this viscerally when visiting with an older family member who listens to insane people on FB all day, who happen to be anti-vaxxers. This person is 'at risk' and has been strongly influenced by the nauseating, constant misinformation about vaccines and other things. 2) The argument over the term 'whistleblower' - and the material legality of the allegations matters a lot. What Enron did was wrong, that's not an opinion. The Facebook leaks don't point at legal wrongdoing, or rather, it would be an editorialisation to indicate that they are even doing anything wrong, legal or otherwise. There's a world of difference between someone 'disagreeing' with Facebook vs. indicating that FB has done something very illegal, which I believe the term 'whistleblower' implies i.e. they're 'blowing the whistle' on some malfeasance. When someone is a 'whistleblower' they are subject to all kinds of protections not afforded to someone merely 'disagreeing' with their company. Ironically, what she did was probably very illegal. And yes, she does have the right to be 'prepared' but it rather seems to me to be disingenuous as people are not going to be aware of the planned mechanations of the organized plot, and I think that matters as well.

aeturnum 5y ago
> This person is 'at risk' and has been strongly influenced by the nauseating, constant misinformation about vaccines and other things. I agree that Facebook is a conduit for gross views, but it seems important to decide who should be sanctioned and how much. Is it the fault of the person saying the lie or the fault of the network that distributes it? > the material legality of the allegations matters a lot. I'm not aware of any claim that this set of docs shows legal wrongdoing, so that feels pretty well settled. I also think there is plenty of whistle blowing that doesn't demonstrate direct illegal activity. The obvious example is Snowden who, of course, reported on programs that were all understood to be legal. Other examples I think of that I would call whistleblowers: Manning, whoever leaked the Exxon global warning docs, ditto for Big Tobacco[1], the pentagon papers, etc. There are endless examples of leaking docs demonstrating immoral activity that's not illegal (which often prompts changes). > When someone is a 'whistleblower' they are subject to all kinds of protections not afforded to someone merely 'disagreeing' with their company. She probably doesn't qualify for whistleblower protections under the law (edit: also, as I have seen calls for a defense fund, I don't think she is claiming she does), but as I said neither would many of the people who leaked documents in the cases above. I think it would be fair to call all of them whistleblowers. > it rather seems to me to be disingenuous as people are not going to be aware of the planned mechanations of the organized plot I do not understand this view. It is not disingenuous to think about an argument before making it. The Facebook critics have been quite public about their critiques. What is the "plot" here? [1] These docs may have proved they lied to congress? Not sure.

aeturnum 5y ago

> This person is 'at risk' and has been strongly influenced by the nauseating, constant misinformation about vaccines and other things. I agree that Facebook is a conduit for gross views, but it seems important to decide who should be sanctioned and how much. Is it the fault of the person saying the lie or the fault of the network that distributes it? > the material legality of the allegations matters a lot. I'm not aware of any claim that this set of docs shows legal wrongdoing, so that feels pretty well settled. I also think there is plenty of whistle blowing that doesn't demonstrate direct illegal activity. The obvious example is Snowden who, of course, reported on programs that were all understood to be legal. Other examples I think of that I would call whistleblowers: Manning, whoever leaked the Exxon global warning docs, ditto for Big Tobacco[1], the pentagon papers, etc. There are endless examples of leaking docs demonstrating immoral activity that's not illegal (which often prompts changes). > When someone is a 'whistleblower' they are subject to all kinds of protections not afforded to someone merely 'disagreeing' with their company. She probably doesn't qualify for whistleblower protections under the law (edit: also, as I have seen calls for a defense fund, I don't think she is claiming she does), but as I said neither would many of the people who leaked documents in the cases above. I think it would be fair to call all of them whistleblowers. > it rather seems to me to be disingenuous as people are not going to be aware of the planned mechanations of the organized plot I do not understand this view. It is not disingenuous to think about an argument before making it. The Facebook critics have been quite public about their critiques. What is the "plot" here? [1] These docs may have proved they lied to congress? Not sure.