3 ms·

what? you see no issues with an employee of Meta getting accounts unbanned in exchange for sex?

by zht 4y ago

dymk 4y ago
I never said that either. I think the whole situation is screwed up. The company’s internal tools being structured such that a random employee can unban an account without oversight is obviously a bad thing, and it’s an example of corruption. I’m also blown away at how short-sighted this woman is about the man’s employment, after he did her frankly a big favor in return for sex. Not to mention her account will just get banned again, given she admitted to it on video.
- undecisive 4y ago
  Nah. Hopefully she isn't an idiot and has downloaded everything she cared about from facebook. But the fact is that we're all talking about this, inside tech spheres as well as outside. A literal real-life "who do I have to screw to get my stuff back?" moment. It means that no matter how little you respect what she has done, she may have just changed the world. Or, we'll forget in five minutes and Metabook will continue to ban people with impunity. Just my opinion, but someone being willing to lose something they sold their body to win back is reasonably respectable. Certainly they've done the world a big favour, whatever their motivations.
- pvg 4y ago
  how short-sighted this woman is about the man’s employment Not sure you're assigning the responsibility to look after someone's career to the right person here.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  > Not to mention her account will just get banned again, given she admitted to it on video. Banning her at this point would look pretty vindictive: "You revealed corruption in our organization, so we're banning you." Would make for some pretty bad headlines. They might still do it, but it's not a good PR move. > I’m also blown away at how short-sighted this woman is about the man’s employment, after he did her frankly a big favor in return for sex. It's not a favor if you had to pay for it.
zajio1am 4y ago
This is a classic case of corruption, just using sex instead of money. In corruption, both sides are guilty, but i would generally put more blame on the side initiating the corruption.
- undecisive 4y ago
  I think most people would say that the side with the power is the one that is guilty. Consider, for example, flights to a corrupt country. To get through customs unscathed, every passenger is required to bribe the staff at the airport. Just because the passenger pulls out their wallet and hands over a bribe at the first sign of friction, does that make the passenger more guilty than those who set up this corrupt system? Those that benefit from the corruption? It must always be those with power that we hold to account. That's not to say that those who participate in the system should have zero consequences (which, in these examples, is not the case - they've paid something, whether with their wallet or with their flesh) - but until those in power are fully held to account and the systems are changed, you are blaming the victim, even if they did initiate this form of corruption.
  - zajio1am 4y ago
    > Just because the passenger pulls out their wallet and hands over a bribe at the first sign of friction, does that make the passenger more guilty than those who set up this corrupt system? Those that benefit from the corruption? If they set up the corrupt system and everyone is expected to pay bribes, then the newly incoming passenger is not really the initiator, in that case the corruption is systemic, and i would put most blame on management to not make steps to eliminate it, but i agree that in this setup the bribees are more responsible than bribers, as they have more experience and information about the corruption in the system. But let consider a slightly different case - a bureau (say building authority), with many twisted bureaucratic rules and procedures, where any request takes long to proceed and is often denied, but generally not corrupt. People just patiently do the necessary steps and accept it, or shrug off and go away. Then someone does not accept that and instead offers a bribe to get pass their request fast. In such case the initiator is clearly responsible for corruption, while the bureau is just responsible for general bureaucratic inefficiency. And lets consider third case - driving license exam, and someone who fails it just bribes driving inspector to instead make it pass. In that case it is not even inefficiency, the license should be rejected and the briber just seeks unfair advantage. That is even more clear that initiator is more guilty, although the driving inspector has the power. So, i would say that there are two kinds of corruptions - first, where briber wants something that should get without bribes, and second, where briber wants some unfair advantage.
robonerd 4y ago
The meta employees didn't necessarily understand the transactional nature of their relationship with this woman. It might be the case they thought there was a genuine connection and the request for an unban only came after rapport was established. Two possible ways this might have gone down: Employee is cold-contacted with an upfront offer: "Let's meet up, I'll have sex with you, and exchange you can help me get my account unbanned" ..or.. Employee is cold-contacted with something like: "You seem like a cool guy, let's meet up" Then a few days later they get hit with "Btw now that we've hit it off, can you help get me unbanned?"

what? you see no issues with an employee of Meta getting accounts unbanned in exchange for sex?

by zht 4y ago

what? you see no issues with an employee of Meta getting accounts unbanned in exchange for sex?

dymk 4y ago

I never said that either. I think the whole situation is screwed up. The company’s internal tools being structured such that a random employee can unban an account without oversight is obviously a bad thing, and it’s an example of corruption. I’m also blown away at how short-sighted this woman is about the man’s employment, after he did her frankly a big favor in return for sex. Not to mention her account will just get banned again, given she admitted to it on video.

undecisive 4y ago
Nah. Hopefully she isn't an idiot and has downloaded everything she cared about from facebook. But the fact is that we're all talking about this, inside tech spheres as well as outside. A literal real-life "who do I have to screw to get my stuff back?" moment. It means that no matter how little you respect what she has done, she may have just changed the world. Or, we'll forget in five minutes and Metabook will continue to ban people with impunity. Just my opinion, but someone being willing to lose something they sold their body to win back is reasonably respectable. Certainly they've done the world a big favour, whatever their motivations.
pvg 4y ago
how short-sighted this woman is about the man’s employment Not sure you're assigning the responsibility to look after someone's career to the right person here.
AlexandrB 4y ago
> Not to mention her account will just get banned again, given she admitted to it on video. Banning her at this point would look pretty vindictive: "You revealed corruption in our organization, so we're banning you." Would make for some pretty bad headlines. They might still do it, but it's not a good PR move. > I’m also blown away at how short-sighted this woman is about the man’s employment, after he did her frankly a big favor in return for sex. It's not a favor if you had to pay for it.

zajio1am 4y ago

This is a classic case of corruption, just using sex instead of money. In corruption, both sides are guilty, but i would generally put more blame on the side initiating the corruption.

undecisive 4y ago
I think most people would say that the side with the power is the one that is guilty. Consider, for example, flights to a corrupt country. To get through customs unscathed, every passenger is required to bribe the staff at the airport. Just because the passenger pulls out their wallet and hands over a bribe at the first sign of friction, does that make the passenger more guilty than those who set up this corrupt system? Those that benefit from the corruption? It must always be those with power that we hold to account. That's not to say that those who participate in the system should have zero consequences (which, in these examples, is not the case - they've paid something, whether with their wallet or with their flesh) - but until those in power are fully held to account and the systems are changed, you are blaming the victim, even if they did initiate this form of corruption.
- zajio1am 4y ago
  > Just because the passenger pulls out their wallet and hands over a bribe at the first sign of friction, does that make the passenger more guilty than those who set up this corrupt system? Those that benefit from the corruption? If they set up the corrupt system and everyone is expected to pay bribes, then the newly incoming passenger is not really the initiator, in that case the corruption is systemic, and i would put most blame on management to not make steps to eliminate it, but i agree that in this setup the bribees are more responsible than bribers, as they have more experience and information about the corruption in the system. But let consider a slightly different case - a bureau (say building authority), with many twisted bureaucratic rules and procedures, where any request takes long to proceed and is often denied, but generally not corrupt. People just patiently do the necessary steps and accept it, or shrug off and go away. Then someone does not accept that and instead offers a bribe to get pass their request fast. In such case the initiator is clearly responsible for corruption, while the bureau is just responsible for general bureaucratic inefficiency. And lets consider third case - driving license exam, and someone who fails it just bribes driving inspector to instead make it pass. In that case it is not even inefficiency, the license should be rejected and the briber just seeks unfair advantage. That is even more clear that initiator is more guilty, although the driving inspector has the power. So, i would say that there are two kinds of corruptions - first, where briber wants something that should get without bribes, and second, where briber wants some unfair advantage.

robonerd 4y ago

The meta employees didn't necessarily understand the transactional nature of their relationship with this woman. It might be the case they thought there was a genuine connection and the request for an unban only came after rapport was established. Two possible ways this might have gone down: Employee is cold-contacted with an upfront offer: "Let's meet up, I'll have sex with you, and exchange you can help me get my account unbanned" ..or.. Employee is cold-contacted with something like: "You seem like a cool guy, let's meet up" Then a few days later they get hit with "Btw now that we've hit it off, can you help get me unbanned?"