I don't understand what is being claimed. > A hidden mechanism exists within the code base that allows Meta to bypass any user-facing controls, enabling them t

I don't understand what is being claimed. > A hidden mechanism exists within the code base that allows Meta to bypass any user-facing controls, enabling them to access personal data even if you’ve set your privacy settings to the most restrictive levels. This isn't clear how it isn't just normal system architecture, just with substandard controls to prevent employees snooping on production data. (Of course Meta has access to all the data that is put into the system; that's how pretty much all these systems work, occasionally excluding payment data.) But if we read to later in the piece, it alludes to ongoing effort into some intentional backdoor, for the use of unspecified parties, and which is hush-hush. Maybe the writer was weighing what they can and can't say, and the process load of that tends to result in unclear communication (e.g., harder to track the mind of the reader, across edits and mental deliberations). Or maybe they were just stressed or fatigued, around a big career/life change like this. Anyway... If it's something illegal, then you have the option of contacting authorities. (Or, if there's a reason that won't work, and you're willing to have your life to possibly suck even harder than that whistleblowing mode, then you could contact a good journalist.) They can investigate and, if appropriate, communicate effectively about the problem. If it's not something illegal, then maybe there's an employment NDA that applies. Appreciate the FAANG cushion to your finances, and make ethics/transparency/impact/whatever a bigger factor in what company you go to next.