> This person is 'at risk' and has been strongly influenced by the nauseating, constant misinformation about vaccines and other things. I agree that Facebook i

> 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.