However, since she didn't work on anything relevant, they have to do research without any guidance.
It's Day 1. They can't come out and say "we don't know what she's talking about or where she got her data, so we can't refute it."
As PR, the worst thing for them to do is deny something only to be hit by factual evidence; they'd rather know all the evidence to begin with them try to put it in a good light or reveal a good reason for things being that way.
Of course they cannot do that because she is literally citing their own words. Which is why this is just a thinly veiled, pathetic attack on a worker.
Re-read the parent comment. How is the whistleblower getting smeared based on the assertions above? Are they not factual AND relevant?
edit:
I see comments below talking past this sub-thread. Let's get down to definitions.
> Smear: damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.
At best, the article's premise that FB's claims "smear" the whistleblower is flawed and non-constructive even if you're seeking to slit FB's throat.
The parent comment’s point would seem to be that this person is making a claim that should be refutable with evidence. But the evidence is Facebook’s own data supporting her claim so they can’t do that. Instead, they diminish her credibility. It’s not “smearing” in the sense of calling her a baby eater, but it is a credentials fallacy meant to make people dismiss her claims regardless of validity.
This is really more a flaw of the article, but can you add data that directly refutes the claims raised by this article?
e.g. in her leaked emails, does any of that refute the wording/claims raised in this article?
I'm asking in good faith.
Did Facebook deny creating those documents? No. Did they refute statements from those documents? No. Hence statements about the whistleblower are not relevant.
edit: It appears the shared documents were from a previous leak, I can't locate any of the documents from this leak.
Where are they shared?
Can you explain to me using basic logic what the connection is between your career status at facebook and reading research of the effects of facebook products on its users? what's next, do I need to work at Exxon to understand climate science?
Yes. So they're right but bringing up irrelevancies. It's a diversionary tactic, no doubt. But it's not a "smear".
EDIT: Honestly, I could care less about facebook. Although I think Mark Zuckerberg should be in jail (look at the allegations that his company knowingly experimented on people without their consent), individuals should have the ability to publish on the platform. If bakers must bake cakes, this is only fair.
I could be mistaken, but I don't think she is specifically advocating for that? I believe she is saying specific things should be regulated...mainly the ability to configure timelines, greater control on use by teens, etc.
I am referring to these points of the testimony:
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/FC8A558E-824E...
> The result has been a system that amplifies division, extremism, and polarization — and undermining societies around the world. In some cases, this dangerous online talk has led to actual violence that harms and even kills people. In other cases, their profit optimizing machine is generating self-harm and self-hate — especially for vulnerable groups, like teenage girls. These problems have been confirmed repeatedly by Facebook’s own internal research.
While she is correct that facebook has allowed people to talk that's led to violence (some of it very justified... see the arab spring, etc), and that facebook contributes to division, I don't believe the government should be in the business of regulating the speech of individual users of these websites. Ultimately, that just means the government just gets to squash dissenting voices. Ending the 'dangerous online talk' may today mean stopping violent extremists, but may tomorrow become "Don't discuss anti-government policy messages because it may inspire some people to commite violence" which is a slippery slope.
For example, the whistleblower claims that some online talk amplifies extremism which 'undermines societies around the world'. Some societies deserve to be undermined. Few would batt an eye if Facebook were used by North Korean dissidents to organize around toppling that country's dictatorship.
SCOTUS decided in favor of the bakers in that case, even if SCOTUS left the underlying question undecided (in either direction).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
You should pay attention to what's going on before commenting on out of date news.
Also, a similar case in washington of an old lady florist forced to provide flowers for an event she doesn't believe in. This is like asking a jewish deli to cater the nazis.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gay-couple-wins-case-florist...
In that case, the SC explicitly denied the request, thus de facto legalizing forcing individual people with consciensce disagreements working in their own business to do business with those they disagree with. This is an obvious violation of the individual right to freedom of conscience.
Meanwhile, facebook, a multi-billion dollar powerful corporation, which does not enjoy constitutional rights neither by nature nor law, is given a free pass to exercise its conscience. Sorry... I'll speak for the little guy.
No, it is not.
Being a Nazi is a choice. Being gay is not. (Also, legally, being a Nazi is not a protected class.)
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp...
And having a gay wedding is indeed a choice, and Jack Phillips shouldn't be forced to participate if he believes that his belief in his god makes it so that participating is akin to taking part in evil.
They are not a protected class, which means you're allowed to do things like not hire Nazis without running afoul of Federal discrimination law.
I can be fired for being a Nazi, or a redhead, or a comic book fan. I cannot be fired for my skin color, or my national origin, or my religion. That's how protected classes work.
If not, why not? If so, why? If the answer is not 'Yes facebook must publish', how do you square this away that the answer is 'Yes you must bake'.?
I don’t believe this is the case, isn’t the whistleblower accusing Facebook of lying to its investors and has filed SEC complaints for the matter?
What about your focus on the word "disgusting" is worth resolving BEFORE we get to the threat to the long term sustainability of the democratic political systems currently in place?
- worked there for less than two years and had no direct reports
- never attended some sort of key meeting
- did not work on the subject matter in question
...and therefore, she lacks context which undermines some of her claims.
Which of those is a matter of character, or a "disgusting" attack? They might be wrong, or they might be right but bringing up irrelevancies, but the writer is acting like stating these is some sort of reprehensible smear.