4 ms·

Most of the comments in this thread relate to LibDems rolling over on university tuition fees. Are there any focussed on the actual topic which is Clegg accepti

Most of the comments in this thread relate to LibDems rolling over on university tuition fees. Are there any focussed on the actual topic which is Clegg accepting a Bribe?

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
The actual topic is his name being attached to a claim that OnlyFans bribed him (and others at Facebook). It doesn't really add up to me, but I don't know how these high level bribes work in practice. I would have thought big business would have a smoother routine worked out than transferring money to accounts in people names. But I find it odd that the perfectly reasonable claim by Meta, "why are you suing us if it was OnlyFans who bribed our employees to do something that benefits OnlyFans but not us" gets spun as being further proof that Meta was up to something. I'm happy to believe Meta are up to something scummy but this all feels a bit random.
- jandrese 4y ago
  Accepting bribes to shut down accounts linked to a particular company's competitors seems plenty scummy to me.
- bena 4y ago
  From what I understand: Meta has Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and others. When Meta tells law enforcement that user xxxBobTerrorist69xxx is a terrorist based on information they have from their apps, law enforcement listens. They can also ban that person from all of their platforms. These platforms are used by content creators for findability, just like any business. If the only place you can advertise is your own platform, how are you going to draw people to your platform. The plaintiffs are arguing that OnlyFans used connections to Meta executives to then have them use their position to lock creators on competing platforms out of important advertising platforms. So far, it seems like Meta itself isn't the issue here, it's people who work for Meta. Which is a little hair-splitty considering some of the people involved. But if Rob Walton is caught snorting coke off of a hooker's ass, we don't say "WalMart" is doing it.
LeifCarrotson 4y ago
It appears that the mods have compiled several threads on the topic into a single HN post, merging comments below ArsTechnica and Gizmodo (and possibly other) articles on the same topics, which confuses some of the discussion. Yes, there are some which are focused on the actual topic - note that it's an anonymous tip alleging a bribe as part of a lawsuit, not irrefutable proof/actual confession/final conviction.

Most of the comments in this thread relate to LibDems rolling over on university tuition fees. Are there any focussed on the actual topic which is Clegg accepting a Bribe?

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

The actual topic is his name being attached to a claim that OnlyFans bribed him (and others at Facebook). It doesn't really add up to me, but I don't know how these high level bribes work in practice. I would have thought big business would have a smoother routine worked out than transferring money to accounts in people names. But I find it odd that the perfectly reasonable claim by Meta, "why are you suing us if it was OnlyFans who bribed our employees to do something that benefits OnlyFans but not us" gets spun as being further proof that Meta was up to something. I'm happy to believe Meta are up to something scummy but this all feels a bit random.

jandrese 4y ago
Accepting bribes to shut down accounts linked to a particular company's competitors seems plenty scummy to me.
bena 4y ago
From what I understand: Meta has Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and others. When Meta tells law enforcement that user xxxBobTerrorist69xxx is a terrorist based on information they have from their apps, law enforcement listens. They can also ban that person from all of their platforms. These platforms are used by content creators for findability, just like any business. If the only place you can advertise is your own platform, how are you going to draw people to your platform. The plaintiffs are arguing that OnlyFans used connections to Meta executives to then have them use their position to lock creators on competing platforms out of important advertising platforms. So far, it seems like Meta itself isn't the issue here, it's people who work for Meta. Which is a little hair-splitty considering some of the people involved. But if Rob Walton is caught snorting coke off of a hooker's ass, we don't say "WalMart" is doing it.

LeifCarrotson 4y ago

It appears that the mods have compiled several threads on the topic into a single HN post, merging comments below ArsTechnica and Gizmodo (and possibly other) articles on the same topics, which confuses some of the discussion. Yes, there are some which are focused on the actual topic - note that it's an anonymous tip alleging a bribe as part of a lawsuit, not irrefutable proof/actual confession/final conviction.