What that Facebook Whistleblower's Memoir Left Out (restofworld.org) 42
A former Facebook director of global policy recently published "the book Meta doesn't want you to read," a scathing takedown of top Meta executives titled Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism.
But Wednesday RestofWorld.org published additional thoughts from Meta's former head of public policy for Bangladesh (who is now an executive director at the nonprofit policy lab Tech Global Institute). Though their time at Facebook didn't overlap, they first applaud how the book "puts a face to the horrific events and dangerous decisions."
But having said that, "What struck me is that what isn't included in Careless People is more telling than what is." By 2012 — one year after joining Facebook — Wynn-Williams had ample evidence of the platform's role in enabling violence and harm upon its users, and state-sanctioned digital repression, yet her memoir neither mentions these events nor the repeated warnings to her team from civil society groups in Asia before the situation escalated... In recounting events, the author glosses over her own indifference to repeated warnings from policymakers, civil society, and internal teams outside the U.S. that ultimately led to serious harm to communities.
She briefly mentions how Facebook's local staff was held at gunpoint to give access to data or remove content in various countries — something that had been happening since as early as 2012. Yet, she failed to grasp the gravity of these risks until the possibility of her facing jail time arises in South Korea — or even more starkly in March 2016, when Facebook's vice president for Latin America, Diego Dzodan, was arrested in Brazil. Her delayed reckoning underscores how Facebook's leadership remains largely detached from real-world consequences of their decisions until they become impossible to ignore.
Perhaps because everyone wants to be a hero of their own story, Wynn-Williams frames her opposition to leadership decisions as isolated; in reality, powerful resistance had long existed within what Wynn-Williams describes as Facebook's "lower-level employees."
Yet "Despite telling an incomplete story, Careless People is a book that took enormous courage to write," the article concludes, calling it an important story to tell.
"It goes to show that we need many stories — especially from those who still can't be heard — if we are to meaningfully piece together the complex puzzle of one of the world's most powerful technology companies."
But Wednesday RestofWorld.org published additional thoughts from Meta's former head of public policy for Bangladesh (who is now an executive director at the nonprofit policy lab Tech Global Institute). Though their time at Facebook didn't overlap, they first applaud how the book "puts a face to the horrific events and dangerous decisions."
But having said that, "What struck me is that what isn't included in Careless People is more telling than what is." By 2012 — one year after joining Facebook — Wynn-Williams had ample evidence of the platform's role in enabling violence and harm upon its users, and state-sanctioned digital repression, yet her memoir neither mentions these events nor the repeated warnings to her team from civil society groups in Asia before the situation escalated... In recounting events, the author glosses over her own indifference to repeated warnings from policymakers, civil society, and internal teams outside the U.S. that ultimately led to serious harm to communities.
She briefly mentions how Facebook's local staff was held at gunpoint to give access to data or remove content in various countries — something that had been happening since as early as 2012. Yet, she failed to grasp the gravity of these risks until the possibility of her facing jail time arises in South Korea — or even more starkly in March 2016, when Facebook's vice president for Latin America, Diego Dzodan, was arrested in Brazil. Her delayed reckoning underscores how Facebook's leadership remains largely detached from real-world consequences of their decisions until they become impossible to ignore.
Perhaps because everyone wants to be a hero of their own story, Wynn-Williams frames her opposition to leadership decisions as isolated; in reality, powerful resistance had long existed within what Wynn-Williams describes as Facebook's "lower-level employees."
Yet "Despite telling an incomplete story, Careless People is a book that took enormous courage to write," the article concludes, calling it an important story to tell.
"It goes to show that we need many stories — especially from those who still can't be heard — if we are to meaningfully piece together the complex puzzle of one of the world's most powerful technology companies."
If you knew the truth (Score:5, Informative)
If you knew the truth you would never use a meta product ever again in your life.
Re:If you knew the truth (Score:5, Insightful)
I never have, and never will. It was clearly obvious even back in the early days of FB that it was to be the most significant cancer ever contracted by society as a whole.
"Meta[stasize]" (Score:3)
It was clearly obvious even back in the early days of FB that it was to be the most significant cancer ever contracted by society as a whole.
Hence the reason I call it "Meta[stasize]".
Re: "Meta[stasize]" (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly certain that was meant to be funny. Everyone knows it was Bill Clinton that came up with the idea and Gore stole his thunder.
Re: "Meta[stasize]" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No. Sadly, people who don't know, don't want to know, or don't care, are the vast majority.
I wouldn't want to walk away from my currently lucrative influencer account... said every influencer on every platform.
Re: (Score:2)
What truth is that? That people don't have agency, and are basically mind controlled by advertisers and government spooks?
Diversity is Key (Score:5, Interesting)
little pissant countries that don't respect freedom of speech are bossing around Facebook. If Facebook only had operations in the USA
Have you looked at your current government recently? You know the one cancelling visas for students who took part in protests or that is shutting down university departments it does not like. The US may not be a small country but its current government is incredibly small minded.
While I would agree that historically the US has been a reasonably consistent champion of free speech, it's clearly not at the moment and that's the problem with relying on one country's government. The standard warning for investments is that past performance is not indicative of future results and the solution is to diversify. So having a communication platform regulated by local governments ensures that you avoid the risk of losing that freedom should the political winds in one country shift suddenly.
Re: (Score:2)
However- from a legal perspective, canceling a visa (or outright rejecting one) for people who you don't like isn't extralegal, or extrajudicial.
Congress has, in that case, passed no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Ultimately, what that comes down to, is you don't really have freedom of speech if you're visiting.
Sure, you still have freedom from being locked up here for it- but you can be kicked the fuck out.
I'm not going to weigh in on whether or n
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
canceling a visa for people who you don't like isn't extralegal
Yes it is - the law that Rubio is using specifically states that something that would be legal for a US citizen cannot be used as grounds for revocation (it's a very different story when a visa is being applied for).
Fighting that is damn near impossible, of course, since people are being instantly disappeared to remote prisons, and then quickly deported. The Rumeysa Ozturk case may actually see a courtroom, but if so it'll be the exception.
Will
Re: (Score:2)
The executive branch has broad authority to revoke a visa, even without judicial review (Bouarfa v. Mayorkas)
Dislike what the dude did, but don't make shit up to make your point, it doesn't fucking help. That is what they fucking do.
Re: (Score:3)
https://constitutioncenter. [constitutioncenter.org]
Re:Diversity is Key (Score:4, Informative)
Read the district court ruling that was upheld.
In S.1155, Congress granted the Secretary broad authority to revoke an approved visa petition “at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause.” Such a revocation is thus “in the discretion of ” the agency. S.1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Where S.1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) applies, then, it bars judicial review of the Secretary’s revocation under S.1155. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
The reasoning comes from Title 8 S.1155, which says:
The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 1154 of this title. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.
Which is now judged to mean that the Secretary has the power to revoke any lawfully issued Visa.
Re: (Score:3)
However- from a legal perspective, canceling a visa (or outright rejecting one) for people who you don't like isn't extralegal, or extrajudicial.
Perhaps not in the US but in many countries where there is a postive right to free speech rather that just a restriction on passing laws that restrict it, that would be illegal because it would be preventing that student's right to free speech and those rights apply to everyone - even people visiting.
In essence, this just further emphasises the benefits of having legal diversity. For example, Canada has a positive right when it comes to free speech so it means that everyone - including large corporation
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not in the US but in many countries where there is a postive right to free speech rather that just a restriction on passing laws that restrict it, that would be illegal because it would be preventing that student's right to free speech and those rights apply to everyone - even people visiting.
I am quite certain that in most of the western world, you can have a visa revoked for, for example, holding a rally and shouting "Death to [the country I'm in]"
I'm not saying this is what happened, but I'm quite certain the law allows for revocation of visas just about everywhere.
2 seconds of Google led me to information about the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's prerogative in the arbitrary revocation of visas, to quote the statute, "at any time" (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act).
Canada has a positive right when it comes to free speech so it means that everyone - including large corporations - has to respect it, not just those making the laws.
This makes it more powerful that the US version
No, it
Re: (Score:2)
I am quite certain that in most of the western world, you can have a visa revoked for, for example, holding a rally and shouting "Death to [the country I'm in]"
Absolutely, in fact I'd expect that you can get arrested as a citizen for that since it amounts to advocating for the violent overthrow of the government which is sedition and usually illegal. However, as far as is reported the case here is that the student was protesting government policy and that's usually allowed in most western democracies. While a Canadian minister may be able to revoke visas "at any time" such decisions have to be consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which includes free
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, in fact I'd expect that you can get arrested as a citizen for that since it amounts to advocating for the violent overthrow of the government which is sedition and usually illegal. However, as far as is reported the case here is that the student was protesting government policy and that's usually allowed in most western democracies. While a Canadian minister may be able to revoke visas "at any time" such decisions have to be consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which includes freedom of expression and are subject to judicial review so I cannot see how it would be legal to revoke a visa simply because of advocating a change to government policy if that were done in a legal manner.
At some level, the Canadian Charter of Rights can't apply fully to a visa holder, after all it includes that visa holders obviously cannot do.
I would be interested to see how the courts ruled on this- but I agreed previously that the fact that the person could definitely bring it to Court in Canada is a fundamental difference and improvement. That's limited by statute here in the States, and it's a shit ass law.
Ok, but by that definition nobody has free speech, even the US has regulated speech. Using speech to mislead to commit fraud is a crime in the US as is using speech to incite the overthrow of the government (as Trump himself found after the 6th Jan incident). So speech in the US is clearly "regulated" too, it is just that there are different rules - with admittedly more stringent limitations on what can be restricted - but regulated limits nonethless which again speaks to my point about the benefits of legal diversity.
Agreed, entirely. I wasn't trying to imply that speech is somehow universally free in the US, on
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't trying to imply that speech is somehow universally free in the US, only that Canadian speech protection is not stronger.
It's stronger in terms of enforcement because nobody, including employers and other individuals, can infringe those rights. Unlike the US it is not just limited to restricting the government. However, I agree the protection is weaker when it comes to what the government can restrict - heck we even have some laws compelling speech now in Canada which is truly apalling. So I'd argue whether it is weaker or stronger depends on what the situation is: if you get fired for expressing a mainstream political point
Re: (Score:2)
It's stronger in terms of enforcement because nobody, including employers and other individuals, can infringe those rights.
Except that limitations in the US are highly limited, by the US government.
I think you maybe over-read my concession that some speech is policed in the US.
To our incitement example- no word said would be considered illegal, outside of the act that happened because of it.
I.e., its the consequence of the speech that is policed, not the speech itself.
To add to that train of thought, if you were to exercise "hate speech" (which is totally legal), but that led to a mob killing someone, you'd still get nail
Re:Diversity is Key (Score:5, Insightful)
We have moved WAY BEYOND just cancelling visas. A group of masked men in civilian clothes apprehended a student and shipped her 1500 miles away to a detention center, because the government didn't like what she wrote. Even if she had "Death to America" tattooed on her arms, that kind of reaction from the government is pure Police State fascism. This was not a "SWAT team takedown of a dangerous terrorist." And in case you think I'm making this up, it was caught on video: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/u... [nbcnews.com] Then the government moved her in clear violation of a court order to the contrary. If you live in the US and are not outraged, regardless of how you voted, you're not paying attention. It's one thing to take legal executive action. It's a whole 'nuther thing to do anonymous snatches and deliberately violate court orders.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty normal in every country for foreigners to be kicked out or denied entry for trivial reasons.
This is correct.
However, the manner in which it was done is pretty fucking Gestapo-esque.
The judges who interfere with the normal operation of the government for political reasons are the ones dangerously undermining the law.
Oh- you're one of those fucking morons who are trying to call the third branch of the government- the branch whose duty it is to make sure the motherfucker you elected draws within the lines- dangerous.
You piece of shit fascists are a stain on humanity. You may have fooled some that your Beer Hall Putsch [wikipedia.org] wasn't exactly what it looked like, but I promise you the country fucking knows. History will know.
Re: (Score:3)
And in case you think I'm making this up, it was caught on video:
Wow if four guys in hoodies, out of uniform, pretended to be law enforcement and tried to arrest me like that, I absolutely would have thought I was being kidnapped and run away.
Re: (Score:3)
The part that freaks me out more than the idea of Trump kicking people he doesn't like out of the country (which I've stressed elsewhere, is, as it turns out, legal- for any reason you can imagine under the sun, at the Secretary of DHS discretion- a part of law that should abso-fucking-lutely be repealed) is the fact that the dudes who's job was to execute this nasty order- people of the US- think it's fucking ok to do it in this manner. It's disgusting.
Re: (Score:1)
Free Speech existed long before Social Media and was doing just fine thanks. Our world has not been made a better place by Social Media, it's more divided, ignorant and hostile than ever before.
Only somewhat interesting (Score:2)
They are all dispicable. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just human nature. A big business includes a whole lot of people, and the highest positions are most attractive to toxic self-promoters, so they are always present and climbing the ranks. And even for leaders who are not intrinsically toxic, the position of power they hold has a natural impact on their mind, making them see those beneath themselves as little more than pack animals.
Of course, big businesses also have good people working in them and also produce products and services that we want. So they are a natural mix of good and evil and all kinds of other things in between.
But, fundamentally, we can count on all big businesses being as evil as they think they can be. What they expect they can get away with is exactly what they attempt. Any thought that the good-person elements at work in the business will stop top leadership from doing ghastly things (if they expect they can get away with it) is just naive. Law enforcement and regulation needs to apply to them with eternal vigilance.
Re: (Score:2)
Careless? (Score:3)
Careless? I'd say Meta's managers care less, only want to hit their targets to get their performance bonuses, stock grants, and profit sharing from the big Zucker. How many bodies they have to step over or run over doesn't matter until they are the corporate scapecoat, when Meta champion's "ethics" and "free speech."
"He's in for the buck. He don't take prisoners." from the movie "Wall Street" ...
JoshK.
Re: (Score:2)
Careless? I'd say Meta's managers care less, only want to hit their targets to get their performance bonuses, stock grants, and profit sharing from the big Zucker.
I'd say the root problem is that there's too many public companies as a whole, with their "real" customers being their investors and shareholders, with "users/consumers" of their product/service being just another tool by which these public companies create value for their real customers.
This creates a perverse incentive (encouraged by the demands of their fiduciary duty) to do whatever's needed to create that short-term value, regardless of the long-term consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
Those that tend to do so are often themselves favoring their short-term.
The perverse incentive is in the ownership of a company they can sell to any random person on the open exchange, who doesn't know the details, and insider trading being very hard to pin down.
Most cases of insider trading are settled out of court with the SEC since prosecution is so difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter whether it's required or not - they'll do whatever they can do their own advantage that's permitted by law.... or hell even if it's illegal [wikipedia.org], as long as the consequences to them isn't that bad (that is, their gains outweigh the slap-on-the-wrist punishment).
Then we agree- they'll do whatever they can for their own advantage.
Fiduciary responsibility is their responsibility to the shareholders, and as I said, I assure you that has nothing to do with it.
LOL like the SEC will still be in existence within our lifetimes.
Don't disagree with that. Particularly since they've slapped Musk on the wrist several times, and he his 8th grade mentality doesn't handle that shit well.