8 ms·
The Ex-CIA Agents Deciding Facebook’s Content Policy
- georgeglue1 4y agoI wonder how many CIA employees work at any of the top 20 US companies. Ex-CIA employees probably also work at every tech / industrial / health / oil company in decent numbers? This seems like a potential red herring.
- tablespoon 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#MintPress_News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per... > MintPress News was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.
- alaric410 4y agoI can confirm this story by looking at the guys linked in page.
- notlukesky 4y ago
- JacobThreeThree 4y agoGood ole Wikipedia gate-keeping.
- VictorPath 4y agoThe article gives its sources, and I can go to Linkedin myself to verify its veracity. You're making an argument from authority that I should ignore the source since some authority said to - incidentally a source discussing how "former" CIA employees are working to censor what information I can see.
- tablespoon 4y ago> The article gives its sources, and I can go to Linkedin myself to verify its veracity. So? If they're willing to publish false or fabricated information to push their conspiracy theories, they're almost certainly willing to do other misleading things to push it too -- like making a mountain out of a molehill or giving some mundane fact a sinister spin.
- alaric410 4y agothis particular report is accurate.
- tablespoon 4y ago> this particular report is accurate. You missed my point: something can present accurate facts in a highly misleading way. People who've worked for the government get jobs outside of government, usually in similar areas. There's nothing sinister about it, but articles like this want it to seem sinister. And frankly, this is like 1/10th of a story. They found some profiles on LinkedIn, but so what? Have these people actually done anything unacceptable? MintPress doesn't know.
- alaric410 4y agoWould it be ok if Facebook hired someone who was part of the Sinaloa Cartel? If you hire ex-CIA, that tells me everything about your ethics (or lack there of).
- tablespoon 4y ago> Would it be ok if Facebook hired someone who was part of the Sinaloa Cartel? The CIA (which I understand the bulk is actually writing analysis reports and stuff like that), the FBI, USAID, and the Marines are not drug cartels; and to conflate them is not reasonable.
- 4y ago
- the_optimist 4y ago
- tablespoon 4y ago> One of the basic tactics honed by the CIA in Afghanistan on social media was reply-guy diversion. We now see this constantly on trending anti-Biden Twitter. Maybe that’s your thing? Did you know that kind of accusation is against the site guidelines? In any case it's conspiracy theory bullshit. I'm not going to dox myself to prove it false. And even if I did that, it probably wouldn't do any good because a conspiracy theory logic means the conspiracy theory is always true and facts that contradict it are just lies of the conspiracy.
- freebreakfast 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_r... > Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia.
- tablespoon 4y ago>> Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. Lucky for you, I'm not citing Wikipedia in a Wikipedia article. All my cite does is show the people you probably rely on for basic information about the world looked into this source and found it severely lacking.
- freebreakfast 4y ago> the people you probably rely on for basic information about the world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fabricated_Articles_and_Hoaxes_of_Russia_in_2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fabricated_Articles_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wi... MintPress News is probably a whack news source, but appealing to Wikipedia to support the claim is a bad argument.
- kornhole 4y agoIntelligence agencies employ departments to create and edit Wikipedia pages. I am sorry I do not provide all the sources for this claim, but this is only logical. Paypal closed the account of Mint Press News. This is the same financial censorship tactic that was used against Wikileaks.
- nocturnial 4y agoTo be honest, I don't think I could tell the difference between how they would act with ex-cia people in their ranks or without. I don't see how content policy, adhering to privacy regulations, etc... would be different when there's facebook person or an ex-cia person.
- MacsHeadroom 4y agoKnowing a handful of CIA personally, one thing they've all said is "There are no "ex" CIA." It seems to be similar to the USMC's "Once a Marine, always a Marine." Food for thought.
- daniel-cussen 4y agoYeah and you're being such a good friend to them. Might be true too. Yeah I think it is.
- atwood22 4y ago> It seems to be similar to the USMC's "Once a Marine, always a Marine." But people who leave the marines aren't actually marines in any way other than mindset, right? Not sure what I'm supposed to take away from this analogy.
- ARandomerDude 4y agoI think the commenter was saying (by analogy) even if all official ties to the CIA are severed, the former CIA employee has so imbibed the CIA Kool Aid that it will be impossible (maybe consciously) to try to go to work at Meta without thinking like a CIA employee. All his decisions will be filtered through the lens of "do I think this is what the government would want?" Since many of us have met a Marine who – decades later – was still in love with the USMC, we can get a taste of how someone might feel about the CIA years later.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoInsulting and emotionally charged language.
- ARandomerDude 4y agoTherefore it must be false? I don't follow your logic.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoIt is bad journalism and insulting to the reader. Meta is a large org. CIA, NSA, FBI, etc are large orgs. There will be overlap. You need to tell me why I should care. What are they doing to undermine Meta?
- alaric410 4y agoalso accurate
- tunap 4y agoSounds like good ol' nepotism, to me. It seems to happen in all large<sic> industries where the "watchdogs" were/are/will-be employees or contractors of those they regulate. I'm sure plenty of former/current/soon-to-be FCC lawyers are all over it, too.
- hunglee2 4y agohow many moles do you need on a media platform to divert and shape the narrative? maybe a couple of creators to create the news and an editor to decide what goes in. Pretty easy
- DethNinja 4y agoDo people really believe there is a difference between government and the big tech? These companies regularly get large government contracts, it is unlikely that there aren’t deeper connections. I don’t believe free market exists in the USA and I think it’s economy and media is almost as heavily controlled as China.
- jraby3 4y agoThe great firewall of China prevents most of their citizens from seeing news that isn’t the party line. And if you share it you face criminal charges. Not to mention their social ranking system. It’s ridiculous to say the US media is almost as heavily controlled as China.
- RobertoG 4y agoI don't know about USA or China, but in Europe you can't access some Russian media, and it's still not clear to me what is the legal framework that legitimate that. The European commission have that legal capacity? If somebody know why they can do that, I would like to know. https://peoplesdispatch.org/2022/03/03/by-banning-russian-media-outlets-eu-exposes-its-discomfort-with-alternative-narratives-of-the-ukrainian-crisis/ https://peoplesdispatch.org/2022/03/03/by-banning-russian-me...
- dylan604 4y agoBut in a way it is as heavily controlled, but just not by the government. Large media conglomerates own such a large percentage of the media outlets that they are literally controlling what is broadcast by using the exact same text and "news" in every single one of their markets. These "local" stations are dicated to what they can air, and forced to carry specific segments whether it is the same pre-produced segment or at the least the same pre-approved copy that the local read verbatim. That is not a free press. That is a press doing the bidding of its corporate overlords
- Ansil849 4y ago> The great firewall of China prevents most of their citizens from seeing news that isn’t the party line Totally not like how access to Russian news outlets has been blocked by parts of the West.
- Shindi 4y agoThe person in question - the ex CIA operative - just published a blog post on LinkedIn on how Meta is preparing for the elections in Kenya. Absolutely crazy that countries allow FB to operate in their countries!
- alaric410 4y agoI live in a country that is not USA. Why should we allow a company led by CIA agents to operate in our country?
- Ansil849 4y agoYou should not. But if it makes you feel any better, Americans do the same thing by allowing Chinese tech like Zoom and TikTok operate in their country.
- s_dev 4y agoTo have access to American tech. Simply turning off Google/Apple/Amazon/Facebook will have massive repercussions throughout that countries economy and politics and put that country at a competitive disadvantage on a world stage.
- alaric410 4y agoTell that to China, they seem to be doing fine without Google/Amazon/Facebook. Of those companies, Google is probably the only one you can't remove without effort. But this article was about Facebook. Why should we allow Facebook to operate on our country given that they hire from the CIA?
- s_dev 4y ago>Tell that to China China and the entirety of the EU are the only entities on the planet that could possible compete with "US Tech" and thus the only ones in a position to "go it alone" in order to accelerate a domestic tech industry. >Of those companies You're just asserting it is possible to cut all but Google. OK then. >Why should we allow Facebook to operate on our country given that they hire from the CIA? I don't know why you're asking HN why your country should make decisions. I have given you a reason as to why they would make this decision -- access to US Tech. That's the benefit you get -- sounds like a Q for your own gov officials.
- _int3_ 4y agoYes, this is partially true. turning off Google/Apple/Amazon/Facebook/Microsoft will break stuff. this big five entrenched themselves in IT maybe too much in every possible way. Also I don't believe country without big tech five will be at much disadvantage. They will be forced to build their own substitutes if they see need for it.
- antonymy 4y agoAnd people called me paranoid for years for never making a Facebook account and staying off social media sites. It's hard enough to avoid being propagandized without being plugged into a firehose of information curated by CIA (sorry, "ex" CIA) agents.
- alphabetting 4y agoGiven the discourse on their website, FB should have known the optics here would spur negative pieces like this. That said, not buying the insinuation that CIA itself is influencing their former employees. Former employees shouldn't carry a scarlet letter with them to companies they go to after leaving government. The author's history of sensationalist posts in defense of authoritarian govts is pretty suspect as well.
- alaric410 4y agoIf you were previously part of an organization that violates human rights, I have every right to hold it against you.
- alphabetting 4y agoThis is a company of 60k people. Take issue with their hiring sure, but using the hiring of a couple staffers who are former govt data analysts (these aren't Jason Bourne/blackwater types) to define the company is silly. Now if we are looking at Tiktok's parent company, which has CCP members on their board, I think it is more fair question the motives of the company there.
- alaric410 4y agocia is an organization that uses torture (among other unethical things). if you ever worked for such an organization, I'm not even looking at rest of your cv. your ethics are clearly lacking.
- krolden 4y agoSo its OK when Facebook does it but bad when tiktok does it?
- alphabetting 4y agoNo I'm saying Tiktok is much worse
- 4y ago
- kornhole 4y agoSocial media is great if it is not controlled by government, for profit corporations, and AI. This is why I run my own social media servers in the fediverse: Mastodon, Pleroma, Peertube..
- LeonTheremin 4y agoGood, but using Intel/AMD/Qualcomm/Apple to run open-source code still exposes people to hardware backdoors and silicon trojans that negate any security and privacy. You don't need to take my testimony that all US designed CPUs are backdoored with BadBIOS at face value, be skeptical, but not from one side only - be skeptical of the billionaire side also.
- kornhole 4y agoI believe you are describing exploits that could be used in targeted surveillance rather than mass surveillance and manipulation which are the main concerns in social media. Targeted surveillance requires identifying targets and how to reach them. If a bunch of anonymous users are using somebody's social media server via TOR or VPN, I am not sure how those individuals could be identified and targeted, but please enlighten me.
- bogomipz 4y agoI have no love for Facebook but this is article is such poor and yellow journalism. >"Aaron is CIA. Or at least he was until July 2019." The first sentence is false. The second sentence contradicts and corrects the inaccuracy of the first but the order of operation is by design. The first sentence is designed to appeal the gut and produce a visceral response. The second sentence is of course the more important but cerebral thinking it at that point still dominated by the "gut" at the point. The article then states: >"These hires are primarily in highly politically sensitive sectors such as trust, security and content moderation, to the point where some might feel it becomes difficult to see where the U.S. national security state ends and Facebook begins." These folks left public sector. They left their public sector jobs to join the private sector. The line literally ends and begins on their Linkedin profiles which appears to be the biggest source of research for this article. Then we have this gem: >"But the sheer scale of infiltration of Facebook blows these away. Facebook, in short, is utterly swarming with spooks." CIA Analysts are not spooks. Despite the portrayal in TV dramas, CIA analysts spend their time at desks reading and writing reports. They are highly specialized subject matter experts, they don't make policy. They hand data to other people who make policy. A "spook" is an operative, a clandestine role for someone who would most certainly not have a LinkedIn profile. The article seems to ignore the more obvious in favor of conspiracy, which is that Washington, D.C. is a small town famous for networking. People always use their networks for new and better employment opportunities. It's not hard to imagine that when the first person who arrived at Facebook from DC informed their former colleagues how great the pay and the perks at Facebook were and of course the floodgates opened. Think of how many Beltway Facebook groups there must be. This same scenario plays out at tech companies as well but nobody states "the company is being "infiltrated" by ex-Googlers or ex-Redhat, it's hard to tell where Google ends and company X begins" as that would be seen as absurd. Lastly, nowhere are any numbers meaningfully qualified. The article intones about the "sheer scale of infiltration" but fails to mention that Facebook is a company of 44K employees or that the CIA employees 22K people. Now consider the total number of people the article identifies as ex-Government which is 37 people total, one of which is no longer there. I would imagine you could go to any large corporation on the scale of Facebook and find an equal number of people that used to work a federal agency. In fact I'm positive you could that using Linkedin as your source as well. I'm guessing that including the results of this kind of comparative analysis would have been detrimental to the thrust of this piece however.