6 ms·

Was it this sort of bribe? OnlyFans star says she REPEATEDLY tracked down Meta employees and had sex with them to get her Instagram account reactivated when it

• princevegeta89 4y ago
  Meta goes wherever the money is. Doesn't matter if it's shady or transparent.
  • belfalas 4y ago
    The founder said it himself almost two decades ago: "you can be unethical while still being legal. That's how I live my life." He was telling the truth!
    • blitzar 4y ago
      Wasn't Facebook aka Meta founded in order to get laid? It is just a continuation of its founding mission.
      • belfalas 4y ago
        IMHO that is just slander started from the movie.
        • blitzar 4y ago
          IMHO it is slander from before the movie, perpetuated by the movie. It is more, however, believable than the official accounts.
          • belfalas 4y ago
            It definitely seems very believable given the founders and where FB/Meta ended up eventually. My view is simply that even if the slander is believable, I don't wish to perpetuate it if it's simply not true. (Yes, I realize the irony).
• scohesc 4y ago
  Interesting how over time society is finding the decisions these massive companies make are arbitrary, and usually follow the scent of money - and not to "connect the world together". Some things never change.
  • Huh1337 4y ago
    More like "finding that people are corruptible", it's not like Facebook wanted this or did it on purpose.
    • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > it's not like Facebook wanted this or did it on purpose Facebook (and in this case, its employees) certainly aren’t hurrying to fix a power structure that gives them arbitrary influence.
      • Huh1337 4y ago
        They also certainly aren't hurrying to allow corruption. That goes against company interests. One thing is keeping arbitrary decision power for the company, entirely another thing is allowing your managers to wield it in your name and however they want. I bet you Facebook doesn't want any of the latter.
        • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
          > bet you Facebook doesn't want any of the latter It’s not in Facebook’s shareholders’ interest. That’s all we can say. Concentrated, opaque and arbitrary power centres are predictably corruptible. Creating and nurturing those at multiple levels of an organisation, one whose senior leadership has shown a pathological history of lying moreover, speaks to an unsaid intent, or at the very least, overt tolerance of the pattern of behaviour. It’s also self reinforcing, as the culture increasingly forgets how to build and protect other power structures.
        • toss1 4y ago
          >>That goes against company interests. Nice ideal statement The problem is that there is no "company" that has a will or ability to think or act on it's interests - the "company" is literally a virtual creation. What DOES exist are a collection of people in executive positions. Some of them may take a long view and see that what is good for the company and stakeholders is good for them, and act on those ideas. But, sadly, what usually seems to happen is that the system actively filters into executive positions sociopathic individuals who will happily game the system for whatever advantage they can gain, and they're usually smart enough to not do it in the easier-to-catch direct bribery/kickback schemes. But, if they think they won't get caught, many will do so. >>I bet you Facebook doesn't want any of the latter. Again, there is no "Facebook" who doesn't want the latter. There is Zuckerberg, with primary controlling interest, who wants what he wants, and the board and a bunch of executives. And he can exert some level of control, including the threat to summarily fire them upon his displeasure. That will not prevent any of them bending the organization to their own benefit if they think they can get away with it, and nothing says in advance that they won't try something corrupt if they think they can get away with it (& nothing says they're right or wrong about thinking they can get away with it either).
• jslaD 4y ago
  • consumer451 4y ago
    How so? This Gamergate? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_(harassment_campaign) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_(harassment_campaign...
    • jslaD 4y ago
      • UncleMeat 4y ago
        A woman had sex with a reporter. That reporter also blurbed a game she made. That is not the same as "she had sex with a reporter to get publicity." Gamergate was trash from the beginning and only got more distasteful over time.
        • LordDragonfang 4y ago
          And to be clear, said blurb on her game was a passing mention, not a review, and was published before they began their relationship.
  • nullish_signal 4y ago
    Yea basically, Yellow Journalists in bed with Terrible Game Devs
    • RajT88 4y ago
      If you believe GamerGate was about what it purported to be about. (It wasn't, and you shouldn't) But anyways - you got at least the pretext correct.
      • nullish_signal 4y ago
• 8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
  Meta employees are people too in the end. I can think of plenty of men who would cut ethical corners for a chance to hook up with a porn star. Just self-interested humans being self-interested humans.