Whether or not what Facebook did was illegal and she technically qualifies as a "whistleblower", I salute her for what she has done and is doing by telling this story. People need to know about this, because it is harmful.
This doesn't mean it should be illegal. But it is something people should consider if they go to work for Facebook (or other companies), and hopefully it will inspire people to do something about the toxicity and divisiveness that social media is causing or at least feeding into.
I don't think we should want good people to stop working for Facebook. That never made sense to me. Facebook isn't going anywhere, and as such it should be improved, and the only way that will happen is if good people keep going to work there and trying to make it better.
Yeah... I get where you're coming from but imo if you're a storm trooper working on the death star and you keep going into work everyday knowing who and what you serve, then you're not a "good" person anymore. More like "ok" or "meh" at best when it comes to your personal morals/ethics.
> I don't think we should want good people to stop working for Facebook. That never made sense to me. Facebook isn't going anywhere, and as such it should be improved, and the only way that will happen is if good people keep going to work there and trying to make it better.
I wish I remember the article that explained this to me, but "participate, but try to change it from the inside" pretty much simplifies into just "participate." So all those good people will end up doing (from the inside) is help Facebook achieve Facebook's existing bad goals.
The best thing a "good person" can do to Facebook is leak and hope an external entity takes it down, but most of those good people won't have access to anything that's worth leaking.
> and the only way that will happen is if good people keep going to work there and trying to make it better.
I can buy this reasoning for people in leadership positions, but it seems rationalization for peons working on logging systems, performance etc.
Note that there is an alternative - making bad things illegal or enforcing existing laws. That is hard to do - but still easier than somehow convincing FB to act against its own interests.
No, but if fewer people want to work for Facebook that Facebook has to pay them more to get them onboard, Facebook has a financial incentive to do better.
I’m not really well versed in the history of consumerism, so I ask: Is there a common pattern to what happens with companies which produce harmful products for their customers? Facebook is by no means the first company to do something like this.
E.g. Which cigarette company went furthest in marketing to children, are they still in business? Did any car companies refuse to include seat belts after their safety records were prooven, did they loose good workers as a result of that stubbornness?
"facebook isnt going anywhere". If this was the 90s/early 2000s you would say that about Yahoo. MySpace was a thing for a long time and operated in a way that we were never concerned about it causing the end of democracy or a civil war or helping dictator. I know part of it was technology at the time but also MySpace never used the kind of rage inciting algorithms Facebook does. I only hope PyTorch and Oculus get spun off before facebook gets shut down.
Yahoo is the absolute opposite of Facebook in every conceivable way. Jerry Yang famously roughly said (someone did) they had no idea how they’re making all the money from banner ads. They’re famously stupid in passing on every major tech company willingly coming to them to be bought out.
Facebook famously and studiously (and in hindsight extremely accurately) bought out every conceivable future competitor ensuring they truly don’t have competition in their real market. And their top brass know exactly what company and market they are in contrary to popular belief. barring legislation to split or curtail this org it will continue to metastasize and thrive in the world with reckless abandon.
You can say that for Fox News, or for some company that makes the predator drones. But many would clearly not want to work for such companies. Yet Facebook, a lot of tech folks decide “meh it’s not exactly a war crime” or are blithely/willfully ignorant of its consequences. After this unrefutable proof now, anyone who joins Facebook better learn to live with their decision, if that’s the kind of dilemma they care about that is.
The term whistleblower here is just a means to raise awareness for this information, which is good (not that it does much for the FB-reading population, besides those infatuated with following conspiracy theories).
"Whistleblower" is a term of art: someone who brings a "private" company matter to the attention of the outside world. Usually this would get you fired, so there are legal protections for whistleblowers.
From where do you get the notion that something illegal needs to take place for someone to qualify as "whistleblower"? First time I encounter this idea.
A "whistleblower" in the USA is a legal term of art used to describe someone who reports wrong-doing to the government. The conduct being disclosed doesn't necessarily have to be explicitly illegal, but in order to be considered a whistleblower under the law, the information has to be disclosed to the appropriate government agency (i.e., reporting wrong-doing to a private organization or going public in the media wouldn't legally be considered protected whistleblowing).
The OP's article says that Frances Haugen reported Facebook's actions to the SEC, so that may make her a whistleblower legally, but it's not clear if the SEC is the appropriate agency to handle social media regulation. That seems more like something the FTC or the FCC would be responsible for.
Honestly, I got it from the at-the-time topmost comment on this discussion, which said she's not a whistleblower because FB didn't do anything illegal. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28742045 (I also replied to that comment directly)
I did look it up though, and the dictionary seems to suggest it needs to be illegal or against rules or something, as opposed to simply being harmful.
I think there's a legal definition of a whistleblower that would protect them from civil litigation. That usually involves criminal conduct on the part of the company.
Is any of the research released here actually news to anyone here? Seen internal facebook research leaked that shows negative impact of facebook since back in 2010 and they made the choice to ignore that then as well. 11 years later no change to their priorities and no surprise with Zuckerberg in charge. Those of us who care don't use fb and refuse to work for that company or any of its subsidiaries. She absolutely can and will be sued by fb for breaking her NDA. "illegal" is an extreme term for this though, she won't be arrested for it, will just be forced to pay $$$.
"Those of us who care don't use fb and refuse to work for that company or any of its subsidiaries."
Yes but that doesn't mean you aren't being harmed. If your mom uses facebook and dies because she believed a conspiracy theory about vaccines, for instance, you are harmed.
"She absolutely can and will be sued by fb for breaking her NDA."
That may not be smart on Facebook's part. She probably doesn't have a ton of money. All that will do is bring more attention to this issue. If her testimony before Congress is compelling (and I expect it will be), suing her is just going to piss off Congress. Not sure that's where Facebook wants to be.
This doesn't mean it should be illegal. But it is something people should consider if they go to work for Facebook (or other companies), and hopefully it will inspire people to do something about the toxicity and divisiveness that social media is causing or at least feeding into.