11 ms·
Ex-Facebook director's new book paints brutal image of Mark Zuckerberg
- stackedinserter 2y agoWhat's up, old baits like "ZUCKERBERG TRIED TO STOP THIS BOOK" don't work anymore?
- gchadwick 2y agoA dupe of my comment from another post on this (relating to the US arbiter ruling that she may not promote the book https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43351949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43351949) People may be interested in the interview with Wynn-Williams (the whistleblower) on the News Agents podcast: https://www.globalplayer.com/podcasts/episodes/7DrpKCA/ https://www.globalplayer.com/podcasts/episodes/7DrpKCA/ (it's a UK news/political podcast very popular in the UK). From what they said at the beginning I think this is her first big podcast interview about the book/her claims. I wonder if she chose a UK podcast because of the US arbiter ruling.
- lelandfe 2y agoShe also did an interview with BI "hours before an arbitrator ruled in Meta's favor" https://www.businessinsider.com/former-meta-executive-sarah-wynn-williams-interview-careless-people-book-2025-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/former-meta-executive-sarah-...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- CaptainZapp 2y agoShe said Wynn-Williams’ allegations about Kaplan are false, and in a Thursday statement, she called the book “defamatory” and alleged that Wynn-Williams had skipped “the industry’s standard fact-checking process. (emph, mine) This, coming from a Meta spokesperson, is rather rich.
- kubb 2y agoMy goodness, the audacity.
- dep_b 2y agoIt was fact checked: in Texas
- aoanevdus 2y agoI’m curious what would be considered the industry standard for fact checking in tech. Does Google Search, Apple App Store, TikTok, Snapchat, Amazon store, etc. apply fact-checking to the content posted by users/sellers? Or more abstractly, is fact-checking the responsibility of authors and content editors, or of platforms and infrastructure that spread the content?
- blitzar 2y agoWikipedia is the gold standard. Good enough is asking Grok.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pcthrowaway 2y agoA Youtuber I follow got in an argument a couple of days ago with someone who kept claiming the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians in 1948 was primarily voluntary (not by force or a response to threats to their safety). The Youtuber kept asking him for sources (providing his own to the contrary), and the contrarian kept, I shit you not, asking Grok and then citing Grok as his source. We are fucked.
- latexr 2y agoI’ve seen people smugly post ChatGPT screenshots without commentary with the intent of ending a conversation in a “I’m right and this proves it” way. Of course, the wronger the answer is the more likely they are to have that attitude.
- blogabegonija 2y agoAfter all what Meta did? Who could have thought. And yet people love to upload photos of their children on pedobook.
- isoprophlex 2y agoGood to have more people expose the greedy, dictatorial, detrimental shitshow that is single individuals having an outsized control over important technology. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Noone should be as big as Zuck, Musk, Altman, Bezos... I had one moment of eyebrow-raising while reading the article. On the risk of blaming someone who was mind controlled into caring too much about ultimately unimportant, spiritually toxic shit: > Wynn-Williams’ critiques aren’t limited to Zuckerberg. She describes the working culture under Sandberg as so intense that Wynn-Williams felt pressured to send her talking points while in labor, her feet in stirrups. My thinking is... can you put this 100% on Sandberg? I mean, I get that the culture is bad, but there's two in this game. Maybe... turn off your phone for a day when you're giving birth?!
- PaulRobinson 2y agoBlaming victims for the abuse they suffer is a common theme in modern society. The fact she felt she could not turn her phone off without there being consequences is the core point here.
- DontchaKnowit 2y agoAt a certain point ones unwillingness to accept consequences is capitulation pure and simple and it is what allows people to continue to behave shittily. Takes 2 to tango.
- max_ 2y ago>Noone should be as big as Zuck, Musk, Altman, Bezos... What should be the maximum of how big someone should be? Humans are not perfect, whether "big" or "small".
- kelnos 2y agoCertainly the "maximum big level" is something that reasonable people could disagree about, but I don't think a society is healthy when people can get as big as Zuckerberg, Musk, Altman, and Bezos have gotten. Individuals should not have that much power. It's not healthy.
- ksynwa 2y agoMy conception of world conquering ambition comes mostly from popular media so trying to imagine Zuckerberg trying to become the world's stenographer through a platform that is 90% boomer-bait AI slop is a bit disorienting.
- dzonga 2y agoyou don't become a global ceo without being an absolute killer and not having non-questionable morals. I can make up different stuff about how a ceo can be amoral, and those would still apply to zuck / {{ whoelse }} book meant to be sold at airports for bored people. non-story.
- dep_b 2y agoThis is probably true if you look at all big tech companies, but before Windows, MacOS, Oracle Databases or IBM computers did not have the responsibility of dealing with the communication and shaping of world view of billions of people world wide. It's the same as owning a large share of news papers or TV channels. You own the public discourse. If Larry Ellison is a greedy immoral bastard I switch to MS SQL Server, or something open source. When Zuckerberg or Musk became greedy immoral bastards, they started to shape the information fed to the world. You can decide not to buy a Tesla, but you cannot escape the results of brainwashing of other people that vote. Bill Gates had serious trouble for including a free Internet Browser in his Operating System, because he was not able to influence the public discourse. The new internet mass communication companies do. Google never really got into much trouble while their monopoly was stronger.
- alex1138 2y agoI know your comment isn't about Elon specifically and I have my own reservations about some of what he does, but it's important to point out (and maybe this depends on what you call "misinformation", it shapes all future discussion) that Twitter absolutely was censoring for partisan reasons (before he bought it; I know some have complained Musk does indeed ban his critics) including silencing covid dissent, real doctors and researchers getting kicked off. Him acquiring it was absolutely necessary to break the deadlock Edit: We do not want our platforms to be owned by someone like Susan Wojcicki who inflated her own importance and who thought mass censorship is ok (Google has really abrogated their responsibility here)
- pastage 2y agoEverything is not partisan it might be political. The Republican vs. Democratic is hurting the US badly you can not continue to make everything ok just because you need the support from whatever extreme views is populist in your party. Most of the things a party does is not extreme but you guys are going insane over there.
- kelnos 2y agoNot really surprised. It's good to have more people talking about how these people act out of the public eye. But all of this makes me a little less optimistic, and just reminds me that powerful people are rarely held accountable for all the messed up stuff they do.
- readthenotes1 2y ago"Joel Kaplan, had sexually harassed her. ... and Kaplan, the company’s newly appointed president of global affairs;" Nominative determinism? -- On a different note, Obama, the ex-president with theoretically no official power, is calling up CEOs privately to get them to behave differently? Seems like the Twitter files weren't the only corporate being influenced
- kelnos 2y ago> On a different note, Obama, the ex-president with theoretically no official power, is calling up CEOs privately to get them to behave differently? The article's phrasing was a bit murky, but I read that to mean that Obama called after or around the 2016 election, while he was still president.
- KaiserPro 2y ago> On a different note, Obama, the ex-president with theoretically no official power, is calling up CEOs privately to get them to behave differently? Then its a private citizen calling someone in their network. standard 1st amendment stuff right If its making a speech about it in public, again perfectly above board. Threatening to use executive power in private, very much not. However the USA is arresting people for organising protests, so that whole freedom of speech thing has gone a bit stale, alas.
- kumarvvr 2y agoWe still haven't found out how to use the internet to socialize, without resorting to giving power to a central entity. If there is something out there that can do this, profitably, then we can kiss these mega social giants good bye. I heard about the Blue Sky protocol, but it still feels primitive.
- xoac 2y agoYou realize people (including me) were socializing on the internet before any of these big companies existed, right?
- ohgr 2y agoWe also still do it!
- wyclif 2y agoThere was this open protocol (that still exists!) called IRC. Also: Usenet and email.
- kube-system 2y agoFacebook has 3 billion users. IRC and Usenet basically round to zero by comparison. Email is the real answer here, but the reason it is better is the same reason Facebook et al took over.
- kube-system 2y agoMost people weren’t, until the big companies came around and commoditized it.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Juliate 2y ago_Centralized platforms_ socialising happened around 2004, Facebook being one big survivor of that time. Because then, centralising stuff to provide a massive service proved more efficient (money wise: resources, investment, control, ads). But socialising on the internet? There were plenty of options before, around and after then. Only, they didn't get the same support, convergence and effort since then. Because most people trusted the centralized services would opt to do the right things eventually. Ha. Fools were we.
- wisty 2y ago> A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism Has anyone ever seen Facebbok as idealistic? As far as I can tell, they've always been basically Amazon (the borg that will win at all costs) but a little more trivial, cool and Web2.0, they were never the "don't be evil" Google, the idealistic Twitter, I can't think of many less ideal driven companies. Facebook beat MySpace IMO because it tricked people into using real names. It had the best network effect because of its real name policy (you could easily find people you knew), but it didn't tell you about it, it just posted your name from the sign-up page, which was kind of a dark pattern at the time. Facebook also had a tool that would let you give them your username and password for other sites, and would scrape contacts for you. But don't try scraping your own contacts out of Facebook, that's wrong. Remember the apps, like zombie games? Facebook was not kind to 3rd party devs. Facebook has always been ruthless and other than a bit of open source (PyTorch and React are nice, I guess) as far as I can tell it's never really had any mission other than getting big.
- 3np 2y agoThere was plenty of koolaid around. https://www.map.cv/blog/redbook https://www.map.cv/blog/redbook
- guax 2y agoI remember de people graph search when no privacy settings really existed and people kept complete and updated profiles. It was the ultimate stalker took. Absolute batshit crazy that it existed even for the short time it did.
- Voultapher 2y agoIt was also born by the guy - Zuck and arguably in a similar spirit - who initially created a hot or not webpage to rank female college classmates by "fuckability". No clue how any of this would come as a surprise if you know his history. Brian Cantrill talks about how social media was born crocked [1] while referring to the eerily similar friendster backstory. [1] https://youtu.be/0wtvQZijPzg?t=482 https://youtu.be/0wtvQZijPzg?t=482
- frereubu 2y agoThe idealism is the current corporate story - "enabling communication" etc. - but you're right that there was no idealism to start with. Zuckerberg set up The Facebook so undergrads at Harvard could rate how hot girls were, scraping their images from unprotected university servers. This is a great podcast centred around the film about it - The Social Network - but it delves really interestingly into the story and motivations of the early years: https://www.ppfideas.com/episodes/the-great-political-films%3A-the-social-network https://www.ppfideas.com/episodes/the-great-political-films%... The main conclusion is that Zuckerberg is a pure, amoral opportunist, which is why Facebook has been so successful through an era of "ask for forgiveness, not permission".
- 2muchcoffeeman 2y agoHahahahahaha, sore over losing in Ticket to Ride and Catan. Those aren’t even “serious” games.
- KingMob 2y agoIn addition to it all, Zuck's taste in board games is basic. Though he's still ahead of Elon, who was busted for boosting his Path of Exile 2 account.
- hnthrow90348765 2y agoI want Elon to play EVE Online, it'll be a shitshow for him
- bboozzoo 2y ago> In addition to it all, Zuck's taste in board games is basic. FWIW, Ticket to Ride and Catan are decent, worth playing, euro games. That's miles better than Monopoly or Risk which the casual folk immediately think of in the context of board games.
- KingMob 2y agoOh for sure, but as Eurogames go, those are still two of the most basic. My wife is so sick of Catan she's refused to play it for over a decade.
- xnyan 2y agoI only play serious and important board games.
- 2muchcoffeeman 2y agoYou don’t throw a tantrum over a board game. Because they are just games. The outcome doesn’t matter. Even worse when it’s a simple game that’s barely competitive.
- MarceliusK 2y agoThe fact that Meta is aggressively trying to suppress the book just reinforces the point. If it were all "misleading and unfounded," they wouldn't need to fight this hard to bury it.
- 2muchcoffeeman 2y agoThat’s not true. Just look at the current climate. If I repeat lies often enough, people will repeat the same lies and start to believe.
- MarceliusK 2y agoThat's a fair point, repetition can make falsehoods stick. But if the book were full of outright lies, Meta could challenge it with clear evidence rather than legal pressure
- __loam 2y agoOr actually sue.
- luma 2y agoThey repeatedly claim (in the article) that the allegations are "old news". That isn't a denial.
- BLKNSLVR 2y ago"Old news. You should see what we're getting up to under the protective umbrella of this new US regime. We're going to make SO MUCH MONEY!"
- Neil44 2y agoAll else aside Zuck was basically a kid when the whole Facebook rocket ship ride took off. Nobody is their best self all day every day. Personally I always thought he came over as kind of an asshole but you have to keep hit pieces like these in the right frame. The shortest accurate answer to what's Zuck like is "I never met him" the rest is just clicks and hot air.
- luma 2y agoBut the author here worked with him directly for years, the article recounts several personal interactions that went weird. You haven't met him, neither have I, but the person we're talking about certainly has.
- klelatti 2y agoAre you really saying that first hand evidence of Zuck’s character is irrelevant to our understanding of him because it relates to a period when he was relatively young? We can’t use that together with his more recent actions to create a more complete picture of his character and motivations. That biographies should all start at age 30?
- soupfordummies 2y agoBut also... there's been a whooole lot of smoke from his "benefit of the doubt" card burning up for a looong time now.
- tasuki 2y agoYes, well, she was fired. I'm sure she's completely unbiased. If it was so bad, why did she work there? She was a senior executive, not a wage-slave.
- firstplacelast 2y agoI unfortunately agree with this take, but her (probably) being a crappy person and looking to monetize her experience is exactly why she worked there and there is likely a lot of truth there under her bias. Years ago, an acquaintence was an exec at a tech company that imploded in a semi-public way. He decided he wanted to get a documentary made on the whole thing and sent me his pitch. A little too self-aggrandizing, which I pointed out among other things. Couple years go by and a doc did come out on it (not his), uncovers some shady things and lawsuits against the CEO…and a little bit of embezzlement on his part. So I think you’re right on the money, there’s a reason she worked there. Sucky/shady company and she fit in well.
- xnyan 2y agoBias is universal. Being as open as you can with both yourself and others as to what those biases are is the foundation of honesty. Said another way, all movie reviews are biased because we all have different tastes and preferences, we have all seen different movies which colors how we perceive new movies, we all have different values and limits, the list goes on. I like movie reviewers with a strong opinion, even/especially if that opinion does not agree with my own. Because I understand their strong opinions (their biases), I can easily apply my own analysis and decision-making to their opinion.
- baxtr 2y agoThis triggers my cautionary nerve a bit. I think it is important to recognize that she wants to sell a book. I am not saying she isn't doing this because she has a cause. I am also not saying she is lying or anything. But if you sell a book you can't deny that there might be a conflict of interest. Potentially she paints things more extreme than they really were.
- rchaud 2y agoWhat makes more money, working at Facebook in an executive role or putting out a book that people might hear about but almost certainly won't buy? I don't see these types of books as business opportunities.
- paulryanrogers 2y agoSelling an exaggerated or untrue story about powerful people also opens one up to expensive legal processes and consequences.
- -__---____-ZXyw 2y agoZuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuck: Just ask. Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks.
- KaiserPro 2y agoCan anyone answer this question, assuming its answerable: if they signed a mutual non-disparagement agreement, and they are currently using that agreement to stop a publication, if meta goes and breaks that agreement, doesn't that nullify the contract?
- wnevets 2y ago> Has anyone ever seen Facebbok as idealistic? In my experience they were react coders
- piokoch 2y agoWhat's a surprise, a guy who has stolen startup from Winklevoss brothers and had to settle the case in the court has a "brutal image". Who would've expected that!
- alex1138 2y agoIt's often described as "you can't steal an idea" But if he stole code, that's different If he stole the rollout strategy (to selected universities first) that's also different I don't know how much he actually took, only that there are IMs with really pleasant things like "I'm going to fuck them in the ear". And making outright fake accounts for the W twins
- lvl155 2y agoThis place worships Zuck because he apparently “open sourced” AI. It’s the most ridiculous narrative on its own but we also live in the most absurd moment in history.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- paxys 2y agoDon't worry Zuckerberg is a free speech crusader. She can post all her criticism directly on Facebook and it won't be removed, whether it is true or not. Oh Facebook is taking her to court to block her speech? Hmmm..
- tucnak 2y agoOn a different note; it's funny how otherwise reasonable people (on HN but also in general) become stereotypical gossiping girls whenever there's expose on %famous_person% or a cheap ideological position to have fun with. Woah, corporate America sure rewards the fucked-up people! We do, indeed, live in a society. Chirp chirp
- areyourllySorry 2y agoyet you participate in society. curious! i am very intelligent
- pc86 2y ago1. I hate these "click-and-hold" "bot" "detectors" that takes 6, 7 seconds or longer to complete. 2. Making me do it three times in a row is just obnoxious.
- areyourllySorry 2y agoblame perimeterx
- rchaud 2y ago> she called the book “defamatory” and alleged that Wynn-Williams had skipped “the industry’s standard fact-checking process.” Why don't we let the community decide, instead of these bureaucratic, free speech-chilling "fact checkers"? If it's good enough for your employer, it should be good enough for you. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/07/nx-s1-5251151/meta-fact-checking-mark-zuckerberg-trump https://www.npr.org/2025/01/07/nx-s1-5251151/meta-fact-check...
- BLKNSLVR 2y agoHypocrisy seems to be a word that fades in meaning the higher one climbs the corporate ladder.
- croes 2y agoAut Zuck, aut nihil.
- abc123abc123 2y agoSounds like a disgruntled social justice warrior. I avoid such people at all costs. They quickly make the environment extremely toxic!
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ViktorRay 2y agoOne section of this article seems intellectually dishonest. “Over one dinner, Zuckerberg said Andrew Jackson — known for his populist appeal and his inhumane relocation of Native Americans — was America’s best president and “it’s not even close,” according to Wynn-Williams. ” There are many reasons someone could have a person be a favorite president. It’s unfair to bring up the worst thing a president did in response to someone saying that this president or that president is their favorite. For example I have liberal friends who say FDR is their favorite president. It would be unfair to say then “FDR known for throwing Japanese people in internment camps was the favorite president of Joe Smith!” I have friends who say Obama was their favorite president. Imagine someone saying “Obama who killed thousands through drone attacks was the favorite president of Jane Smith!” Anyway when it comes to Andrew Jackson specifically I had a libertarian friend in high school who was a big fan of him because he helped eliminate the Bank of the United States. I was in high school taking AP US History around the time Ron Paul was running for president so I believe my libertarian friend was connecting Ron Paul’s opposition to the Federal Reserve with Andrew Jackson’s anti Bank of US policies. I don’t know why Zuckerberg likes Andrew Jackson so much. I wish the article had said it.
- buffington 2y agoYou keep using the words "favorite president", yet the quote you're picking at isn't concerned with Zuckerberg's favorite president. The quote says "America's best president and 'it's not even close'." That is a very different thing than "favorite president" - that's someone who believes they're being objective, that there's no arguments to be made about what others should see as a simple fact.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y agoThe author says Meta employees told her to let Zuckerberg win at board games because he does not like to lose. SBF recently told Tucker Carslon from prison he was surprised when inmates with no high school education beat him at chess. Zuckerberg and Bankman-Fried might make great cellmates. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly820v99ppo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly820v99ppo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5zyq0250wo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5zyq0250wo
- dang 2y agoRecent and related: Meta is trying to stop a former employee from promoting her book about Facebook - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43349473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43349473 - March 2025 (104 comments)
- soupfordummies 2y agoThe irony of Meta trying to stop her from promoting the book is that it's... promoting her book. Any press is good press etc. This book prob wouldn't have even blipped my radar were it not for all of these stories about how they're trying to stop it.
- potterbarbatod 2y ago[dead]
- sherdil2022 2y ago[flagged]
- thomassmith65 2y agoThe actual article title is: "A Facebook Insider's Exposé Alleges Bad Behavior at the Top" This comment would make more sense if the title were: "A Facebook Insider's Shocking Exposé Alleges Surprisingly Bad Behavior at the Top"
- mrweasel 2y agoWell, it's not really that surprising is it? It's mostly a clarification of what types of bad behaviour. I haven't read the book, but from the article it seems like it's mostly inappropriate sexual behaviour and some stuff we already know, but apparent collectively decided that we don't care enough about to attempt to change how Meta operate.
- thomassmith65 2y agoLos Angeles is on a fault line. If a huge earthquake were to devastate it tomorrow, it wouldn't be too surprising. It would still be news.
- enraged_camel 2y agoDo you only read things that have shock value?
- sherdil2022 2y agoMy failed attempt at sarcasm and cynicism. Of course I am shocked and sort of getting numbed by these aholes behavior and the way they carry out these deplorable actions with impunity. Because they can afford lawyers, and / or company resources (aka HR) always seem to side with these aholes.
- oldpersonintx 2y ago[dead]
- MrMcCall 2y ago[flagged]
- n4r9 2y agoWhy do you mention Gates in particular?
- MrMcCall 2y agoIf there's a person who used ALL his power to win every skirmish, no matter how unscrupulously, it was BG. A guy that powerful and unscrupulous and also unattractive with that horrible voice only gets women because of money and power. And the only woman who could stand him enough to marry him (and have his kids) was no looker, yet divorced him with no press whatsoever. That's the power of money. I suspect a lot of us nerds wouldn't've been nerds if we could get girls. Some of us grow up to be kind, grateful partners, but we likely didn't trample everyone underfoot to become a mega billionaire. The silence that surrounds him smells like money, to me.
- selimthegrim 2y agoI read plenty of press about her giving him a hall pass and the boot over Epstein eventually.
- MrMcCall 2y agoThanks for the details. I guess she got what she wanted; it would make sense that he would end up with a person just as cutthroat as himself. And, yeah, it stands to reason that Epstein is the real reason for his radio silence. My point still stands, however. I very much doubt that all his paid-for NDAs were for tech reasons.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- n4r9 2y agoThere's a lot of subjective judgement going on in this post, but putting that aside: how does all this not apply equally well to most other wealthy billionaires such as Bezos, Ellison, Ballmer etc... ? I'm curious why you're picking on Gates.
- pbiggar 2y agoAnother source of allegations about the behaviour at Meta comes from 7amleh's report on how they systematically suppressed what Americans and others were allowed see about Israel's invasion of Palestine. https://7amleh.org/storage/Advocacy%20Reports/Delete%20the%20issue-11.11.pdf https://7amleh.org/storage/Advocacy%20Reports/Delete%20the%2...
- ToucanLoucan 2y agoAmericans are one of the most, if not the most, propagandized populations on the planet, and the worst part is a large cohort of them fully believe they aren’t.
- fellow_eng_25 2y agoDon't forget the Germans.
- throwawayqqq11 2y ago... changes what exactly? Certainly not the required ignorance to stay in your propaganda sphere.
- thomassmith65 2y agoSocial media has democratized propaganda. Political messages often come from ostensibly small, independent outlets now - outlets whose incentives are no better than those of governments. A show might be hosted by a couple teenagers in hoodies, but if the hosts are audience-captured, or supported by powerful interests, or just hold strong, irrational views, it's still just bad propaganda.
- throwawayqqq11 2y ago>Social media has democratized propaganda. I find this sentence very wrong since the corporations or algorithms are not really under democratic controll. You even continue to implicate that small creators are blown out of (democratic) proportion.
- contrarian1234 2y agoI'm more shocked there really weren't any shocking revelation. It's pretty much what everyone expected. - Zuckerberg wants people to like him.. okay.. - Weird personal details about lingerie budgets.. an insinuation about Sandberg having some homosexual relationship.. eye roll - The Myanmar stuff we already knew about. It's bad. It seems negligent, but not like Zuckerburg wants to drown babies (all the FANG don't want to hire moderators and want to solve everything with machines) - They tried to work with the chinese government to get in to China. okay I was expecting stuff like top VPs look at people's private messages willy nilly, or Zuckerberg makes sure supportive political condidates win in third world countries. Things that actually matter. How boring.
- damnitbuilds 2y agoI concur. The whole thing was lame and whiny. But you'll be downvoted by the hopelessly woke here. As will I.
- swores 2y agoOh those pesky people who want other people to behave like decent human beings rather than assholes. Bloody hopelessly woke!
- lostmsu 2y ago"decent human beings" and "assholes" according to them. That's a huge distinction.
- damnitbuilds 2y agoOh look, a hateful woke person. You don't see that very often. Only every time someone calls them out on their demented racism and sexism. Thanks for bringing us Trump 2, by the way.
- s_dev 2y agoWhat about the allegations that Facebook is suppressing informating regarding the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestine? Is that an eye roll as well in your book or is it newsworthy?
- BLKNSLVR 2y agoTwo comments downplaying the grossness of the conduct of executives and one reply trying to discredit another whistleblower saying similar things. For me, that's a worrying level of apathy towards and / or normalisation of what should be totally unacceptable behaviour. This is the kind of attitude that gets Trump a second term even after his first.
- thehyperflux 2y agoDon't forget HN is likely frequented by senior figures from all the major tech companies so that kind of comment on here doesn't necessarily indicate that such sentiment is leaking out into the wider world at volume.
- BLKNSLVR 2y agoHah! Pretty good way to sniff that particular breeze then, and there's something rotten in the air. Having said that, the other thread on this topic was bent into what I consider to be a more appropriate shape, so there must be a wide swathe covered.
- TheNewsIsHere 2y agoInteresting how that happens sometimes in HN. Two threads about the same thing. One of them sane discussion, the other a bunch of kiss-the-ring-of-a-corporation pseudo-worship.
- alex1138 2y agoYeah I've seen a few comments on here about Zuckerberg's dumb fucks quote along the lines of "I would have said the same thing" (would you? I hope your employer doesn't find your screen name) Combine that with a few "is this surprising to anyone?" and "this is a nothingburger" (except when it might be, like some of the Russia narrative being made up, it depends; but then, it still deserves a more substantive comment than that) and you get the general level of discourse
- tbrockman 2y agoI bought the book specifically as a result of Facebook's attempts to silence the author and have been enjoying the read so far. While there's nothing "surprising" about the stories it recounts of Facebook's leadership (as many pessimists and contrarians have mentioned each time it's brought up here), it's nonetheless interesting to read intimate details of specific instances where--much as in these discussions--sociopathic and abusive behavior is normalized and goes unchecked, even by those who eventually become victims of it themselves. I hope that over time we're able undo some of the damage caused by these bad stewards of power, but it's disheartening to see how many just care to be on the right side of the whip.
- TheNewsIsHere 2y agoI also purchased the book specifically because Facebook/Meta has been trying so hard to bury it. It is worth finding out what FB/Meta/Zuckerberg want so badly to be concealed.
- damnitbuilds 2y ago[flagged]
- OrangeMusic 2y agoIs anyone surprised by this?
- sherdil2022 2y agoWith the way current corporations - both public and private - are setup, those in ‘power’ seems to be shielded - for various reasons - and the victims are ultimately punished (one way or another). We need something similar to a #MeToo movement to weed out the cancer and bring justice to victims. What are some solutions? Consumers boycotting products, shareholders voting out bad apples, government / legal oversight? Any more ideas?