3 ms·
I think the author was complicit and only complained once FB stopped paying her. It was weird how the author claimed not to know how facebook targeted ads work
by prepend 6mo ago
I think the author was complicit and only complained once FB stopped paying her.
It was weird how the author claimed not to know how facebook targeted ads worked until 2016/2017 after she had made millions.
- mortoc 6mo agoLiterally anyone with the access to these people would be someone making bank. Do you think Cheryl Sandberg would bother to talk to a poor person? That's kinda the nature of whistle-blowing. You're complicit, you have inside knowledge and THEN you choose to do the right thing. Snowden worked for the NSA before he exposed their lies about spying on US citizens, you think he did literally no work towards that end before blowing the whistle?
- saltyoldman 6mo agoIt's kind of the reason C-execs (and up) stay, the company keeps paying them more and more to hold the secrets.
- cindyllm 6mo ago[dead]
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- Aunche 6mo agoIf the author didn't want others to think of her as a "careless person", she should have refused a severance with a nondisparagement clause.
- andy_ppp 6mo agoSo you should never be allowed to comment on the behaviour of companies you worked for?
- boca_honey 6mo agoAllowed, sure. Celebrated, not really.
- sethops1 6mo agoIf you read the book it becomes clear the author was a key enabler of Mark and Sheryl. Should she be allowed to comment? Of course. But don't think for a second she's a good person for doing so.
- andy_ppp 6mo agoI have read the book, I didn’t mind her conscience surfacing at all. I’m not sure I’d want to go up against an organisation like Meta, and having first hand accounts of how these people love money and power more than they do values and people.
- BloondAndDoom 6mo agoSeems to be a common pattern, it's better than the alternative but nonetheless it's not the brag they think it's.
- tim333 6mo agoThough if she was complicit she's probably in a good position to expose it now things have changed.
- ccppurcell 6mo agoSo what? If we need unscrupulous people to tell us what other unscrupulous people do, so what?
- stavros 6mo agoNothing, just keep in mind they're still unscrupulous.
- ChrisMarshallNY 6mo agoThat pretty much describes confidential informants (used by the police, all the time). Many of these CIs are risking a lot more than just getting sued, and they are seldom angels. Many of them do it, so they won't go down with the ship, or because the cops have real leverage over them.