6 ms·
It's not increasingly bizarre, really, if you just allow for the possibility of one thing: There's something else worse that they know could be in such a book,
by dofm 4mo ago
It's not increasingly bizarre, really, if you just allow for the possibility of one thing:
There's something else worse that they know could be in such a book, but isn't yet, and it is so bad that it is worth doing this.
Perhaps they know that Wynn-Williams could have put it in the book and didn't. Perhaps they know that someone else — someone else British, say? — could write such things in a book and so far hasn't.
Once you assume their motivation is grounded in real fear, it gets easier to see why this isn't bizarre at all; it's inevitable.
- alex1138 4mo ago> someone else British, say? I genuinely don't know what this is in reference to but it's notable Christopher Wylie got suspended on FB Which is obviously more of a priority than any number of horrible things you could report which never get taken down
- spinningslate 4mo agoI’d hazard a guess they might be referring to an ex-British politician who went on to have a high profile role in comms at meta.
- alt227 4mo agoWhy is everyone beating around the bush? Its Nick Clegg
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- techterrier 4mo agoI agree its Nick
- khurs 4mo agoI'm confused. What's the allegation?
- Macha 4mo agoClegg later held the same position but was fired as Facebook decided that it was more politically favorable to stop employing someone in the role that was involved in content moderation (including actions against Donald Trump) and instead hire someone with connections to Donald Trump in January 2025, due to some sort of recent event at at that time. I guess that the thread is implying his position would have given him access to newer claims, just as Wynn-Williams' had, and the method of his firing might give him motivation to reveal anything he knows. Personally I feel that might be giving Clegg to much credit.
- dofm 4mo agoI think the story about the Trump decision is likely to have a politically explosive aspect to it. Because Zuckerberg had dragged his feet about creating the board until they needed the board in order to launder a decision they knew they might need to make. But he wasn't just the oversight board; he was president of global affairs for three-odd years. I don't intend to give Clegg credit, particularly. I'm not a fan. I'm just saying that people like him write books and he will surely have been approached to do so.
- KaiserPro 4mo ago> Clegg later held the same position Clegg was more senior than wynn-williams. Kaplan reported to Clegg I don't think Clegg will do something like that, because its not really in his way of doing things. He is extraordinarily well connected, and is currently riding the board of directors gravy train.
- TheOtherHobbes 4mo agoAlways was. Clegg is notorious for getting the Tories into power in 2010 by promising some basic decency, then betraying those promises to prop up the regime responsible for austerity. He's always been an operator. Moving to Meta after he left politics was an "Oh, of course."
- LearnYouALisp 4mo agoI read that last part in Hugh Dennis' voice
- dofm 4mo agoI am making no allegation, to be clear. I was just having a bit of fun with the way I said it. But it's obvious that Facebook want to make writing anything about them in a book and then publicising it an absolutely miserable experience. I would say the very obvious target of such a message is Nick Clegg, no? He's already written one memoir of his time in politics (didn't sell that well because he didn't have all that many fans left) but as a former Deputy Prime Minister in a really unusual coalition government, I think he's likely to have enough insights he will want to put in a book again by now (since it's plausible we be heading towards a coalition government involving the Lib Dems again, and he will think there are lessons to learn). He also co-created the Facebook/Meta Oversight Board, which reported to him, and was the organisation finally constituted, ultimately, in time to de-platform Trump, which it then did. And then he was president of global affairs. He then left Meta shortly before it noticeably, shamefully and transactionally pivoted towards being Trump-compatible. This is a book everyone wants to read, right? About the nexus of politics, extremism and social media. And it won't get written.
- alpineman 4mo agoIt is weird that her book doesn't mention Nick Clegg once
- ojbyrne 4mo agoMaybe because he started after she left?
- notahacker 4mo agoI think the flip side is that Nick Clegg is probably not a great choice of person to threaten. He's already had the utterly miserable experience of going from unusually popular politician to person personally blamed for reneging on commitments in the coalition government (a route he chose for himself), he's not American and doesn't live there any more or particularly want to go back, and is politically connected enough to not struggle to put together a legal team that's happy to take on Meta, potentially without him even needing to dip into his fairly deep pockets. And frankly getting into a shit fight with an unpopular American billionaire where he's actually the good guy would be pretty good reputation laundering for Clegg, and make a book Brits would be inclined to dismiss as self-serving nonsense sound like it had actual revelations in it. And he'd probably greatly enjoy doing a round of podcasts and TV interviews where he's not the bad guy saying sorry any more.
- dspillett 4mo agoCould also be a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- fwipsy 4mo agoThe article mentions: > But I think they've decided that this is a price worth paying, because: > a) They've done even worse things since Wynn-Williams parted ways with the company; and > b) They're laying off thousands of workers because their giant bet on AI has been a flop, leaving them with a massive cash crunch; and > c) By destroying Sarah Wynn-Williams, they can terrorize all those thousands of bitter ex-employees into silence about the even graver sins the company has committed.
- sowbug 4mo agoPlease don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that". https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- nuancebydefault 4mo agoIn this case 'did you read the whole article' feels apt and correct.
- InsideOutSanta 4mo agoIt might be correct, but it's harmful to the discussion because it makes people defensive. People sometimes confuse "true" with "productive." Something can be true, but also needless or expressed in a manner that isn't helpful. This is something I had to learn the hard way: there's a difference between being honest and being abrasive, and the latter is harmful to you and to everybody else, regardless of how correct you are.
- fwipsy 4mo agoThanks, corrected.
- GauntletWizard 4mo agoThey have done worse things, since the beginning, that they know about but people are not primed to understand yet. Each whistleblower brings us closer to full understanding, bit by bit, showing that even the lower ranks see and are party to things that are unthinkable to the older generation and that the younger are only now waking up to being not okay.
- neilv 4mo agoThe article's theory is similar: > But I think they've decided that this is a price worth paying, because: [...] c) By destroying Sarah Wynn-Williams, they can terrorize all those thousands of bitter ex-employees into silence about the even graver sins the company has committed.
- cataphract 4mo agoSurely if it was that bad someone would reveal it anonymously to the press.
- alexashka 4mo agoEmployee - Large organization. Mosquito - Human. You don't swat a mosquito out of fear, you swat it out of preventing a minor nuisance. A whistleblower is a mosquito that's bitten a human. The most likely outcome is an imminent, violent swat, resulting in career destruction.
- lelandfe 4mo agoRetaliating against whistleblowers is bad publicity and possibly even illegal depending on what's being uncovered, so orgs do have countervailing pressure to not swat too hard, whereas there is no pressure on a human to do the same with an insect. Well, unless you're the president: https://www.npr.org/2009/06/18/105574084/peta-wants-obama-to-be-more-humane-to-flies https://www.npr.org/2009/06/18/105574084/peta-wants-obama-to...
- alexashka 4mo agoThey have pressure to hire lawyers and consult them regarding swatting techniques. That only costs money and money is like blood to humans - you don't even think about it, whereas it is all mosq
- microgpt 4mo agoHow many times do we have to see that laws don't matter any more before we accept that laws don't matter any more?
- alexpotato 4mo agoI remember during the Google anti-trust case that there was example after example of "people behaving badly". Most of these were tools in the anti-competitive bucket but it does make you wonder about the things that happen that were never committed to code nor written down.
- matheusmoreira 4mo agoWhere can I read an exhaustive list of these examples?
- rnagulapalle 4mo ago[dead]
- fmajid 4mo agoI am assuming you are referring to Nick Clegg. The British are very easy to cow and bankrupt thanks to egregious libel laws that put the burden of proof on the defendant. They also have super injunctions allowing wrongdoers like Trafigura to silence whistleblowers and journalists.
- nerdsniper 4mo ago> egregious libel laws Apparently you can get off scot-free in Britain even if you say/write things that are generally considered defamation per se as long as you claim that you utilized the "JDART" strategy: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50695593 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50695593 JDART: "Joke that was badly received, therefore Deleted, with an Apology and then Responsive Tweets to move on from the matter."
- paulryanrogers 4mo agoThat ... doesn't seem like it would help journalists or whistleblowers who are trying to bring serious attention to problems.
- microgpt 4mo agoGen Z/Alpha use irony to convey serious stuff a lot more than previous generations. I could see a serious message being conveyed by irony and explained as irony in court.
- gerdesj 4mo ago[flagged]
- mjrbrennan 4mo agoIt’s definitely usable as a verb, see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cow https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cow
- erpellan 4mo ago