4 ms·

Yeah what makes this story interesting is that these emails and leak are (largely) fabricated. See https://twitter.com/swodinsky/status/1579847763499847681?s=4

Yeah what makes this story interesting is that these emails and leak are (largely) fabricated. See https://twitter.com/swodinsky/status/1579847763499847681?s=46&t=O4AZHqkVbnSHapsWyXwnNg https://twitter.com/swodinsky/status/1579847763499847681?s=4... another giveaway is the missing article in the headline quote - very common with Indian speakers of English, very rare for a Western speaker.

nyx 4y ago
And the email purported to have been written by Andy Stone (who does not seem to be Indian) is rife with indicators that it was written by an Indian English speaker: * How the hell <report> got leaked? (non-standard conjugation) * Why didn't anyone of you bother... ("anyone" for "any one") * Put <names> on watchlist. (dropped article) * Send me ... for last one month. (dropped article)
- duskwuff 4y ago
  I'd add that "link me up" isn't a standard idiom in American English -- a US speaker would probably say "send me the link" or "link me to it".
  - soulofmischief 4y ago
    I believe proper American parlance is "I'mma need the link". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwBEpjOwbpM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwBEpjOwbpM
    - feet 4y ago
      Where the link at
  - prvit 4y ago
    Pretty sure that’s a common expression (in American English too) referring not to URLs but making contact with people. “Why didn’t anyone bother to put me in touch” is how I’d interpret it.
    - duskwuff 4y ago
      While "to link up" is an idiom in American English, "to link <someone> up" is not. The phrase is intransitive -- even if the referent were a person, one would usually say "to link up with <someone>". Moreover, the phrase implies a casual social encounter, which wouldn't be appropriate here; a more formal introduction would be implied by a phrase like "get me in touch".
  - MisterSandman 4y ago
    I'd point out that "link me up" isn't a phrase used in Indian English either, so the person who fakes this wasn't really trying hard.
throwaway384629 4y ago
Given the history of Facebook, there are high chances that the leaks are true. The tweet that you linked claimed the leaks to be fabricated based on following 3 points and imho, none of the 3 points make much sense. >> 1. "http://instagram.workplace.com http://instagram.workplace.com" isn't a URL that exists lmao 2. any emails sent from andy et al would be " @meta ," not " @fb " 3. a source just confirmed there's no email alias called "Internal" If a url is not available to public that does not mean that the url does not exist “Lmao”
- mandeepj 4y ago
  > any emails sent from andy et al would be " @meta ," not " @fb" Right! The reasonings does not make any sense, especially the above. Why would FB change its email addresses to Meta? Their stock ticker is still FB.
  - colejohnson66 4y ago
    > Why would FB change its email addresses to Meta? To go all in on the name change? `@fb.com` will probably just forward. > Their stock ticker is still FB. Not true since June 9[0]. Their NASDAQ ticker is $META[1]. Links to $FB[2] redirect to the correct one. [0]: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/facebook-ticker-change-meta-fb/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/facebook-ticker-cha... [1]: https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/meta https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/meta [2]: https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/fb https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/fb
    - mandeepj 4y ago
      > Not true since June 9[0]. Their NASDAQ ticker is $META[1]. Links to $FB[2] redirect to the correct one. Indeed! Thanks for the correction. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/META?p=META&.tsrc=fin-srch https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/META?p=META&.tsrc=fin-srch
- duskwuff 4y ago
  > If a url is not available to public that does not mean that the url does not exist Compare the behavior of the following URLs: http://cisco.workplace.com/ http://cisco.workplace.com/ http://contoso.workplace.com/ http://contoso.workplace.com/ http://google.workplace.com/ http://google.workplace.com/ Two of these are real companies that have signed up for Workplace. One is not. See if you can tell which is which. Now, which of these does http://instagram.workplace.com/ http://instagram.workplace.com/ seem most like? (Of course, it is possible that Meta has done something special to make their Workspace instance behave exactly like a nonexistent one. I can't rule that out. But it would be very unusual for them to build in a confusing special case just for themselves.)

nyx 4y ago

And the email purported to have been written by Andy Stone (who does not seem to be Indian) is rife with indicators that it was written by an Indian English speaker: * How the hell <report> got leaked? (non-standard conjugation) * Why didn't anyone of you bother... ("anyone" for "any one") * Put <names> on watchlist. (dropped article) * Send me ... for last one month. (dropped article)

duskwuff 4y ago
I'd add that "link me up" isn't a standard idiom in American English -- a US speaker would probably say "send me the link" or "link me to it".
- soulofmischief 4y ago
  I believe proper American parlance is "I'mma need the link". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwBEpjOwbpM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwBEpjOwbpM
  - feet 4y ago
    Where the link at
- prvit 4y ago
  Pretty sure that’s a common expression (in American English too) referring not to URLs but making contact with people. “Why didn’t anyone bother to put me in touch” is how I’d interpret it.
  - duskwuff 4y ago
    While "to link up" is an idiom in American English, "to link <someone> up" is not. The phrase is intransitive -- even if the referent were a person, one would usually say "to link up with <someone>". Moreover, the phrase implies a casual social encounter, which wouldn't be appropriate here; a more formal introduction would be implied by a phrase like "get me in touch".
- MisterSandman 4y ago
  I'd point out that "link me up" isn't a phrase used in Indian English either, so the person who fakes this wasn't really trying hard.

throwaway384629 4y ago

Given the history of Facebook, there are high chances that the leaks are true. The tweet that you linked claimed the leaks to be fabricated based on following 3 points and imho, none of the 3 points make much sense. >> 1. "http://instagram.workplace.com http://instagram.workplace.com" isn't a URL that exists lmao 2. any emails sent from andy et al would be " @meta ," not " @fb " 3. a source just confirmed there's no email alias called "Internal" If a url is not available to public that does not mean that the url does not exist “Lmao”

mandeepj 4y ago
> any emails sent from andy et al would be " @meta ," not " @fb" Right! The reasonings does not make any sense, especially the above. Why would FB change its email addresses to Meta? Their stock ticker is still FB.
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  > Why would FB change its email addresses to Meta? To go all in on the name change? `@fb.com` will probably just forward. > Their stock ticker is still FB. Not true since June 9[0]. Their NASDAQ ticker is $META[1]. Links to $FB[2] redirect to the correct one. [0]: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/facebook-ticker-change-meta-fb/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/facebook-ticker-cha... [1]: https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/meta https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/meta [2]: https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/fb https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/fb
  - mandeepj 4y ago
    > Not true since June 9[0]. Their NASDAQ ticker is $META[1]. Links to $FB[2] redirect to the correct one. Indeed! Thanks for the correction. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/META?p=META&.tsrc=fin-srch https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/META?p=META&.tsrc=fin-srch
duskwuff 4y ago
> If a url is not available to public that does not mean that the url does not exist Compare the behavior of the following URLs: http://cisco.workplace.com/ http://cisco.workplace.com/ http://contoso.workplace.com/ http://contoso.workplace.com/ http://google.workplace.com/ http://google.workplace.com/ Two of these are real companies that have signed up for Workplace. One is not. See if you can tell which is which. Now, which of these does http://instagram.workplace.com/ http://instagram.workplace.com/ seem most like? (Of course, it is possible that Meta has done something special to make their Workspace instance behave exactly like a nonexistent one. I can't rule that out. But it would be very unusual for them to build in a confusing special case just for themselves.)