Ex-Facebook director's new book paints brutal image of Mark Zuckerberg

https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/ex-facebook-director-book-brutal-image-zuckerberg-20220239.php

by AntiRush • 1 year ago

434 305 1 year ago

gchadwick• 1 year ago

A 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)

People may be interested in the interview with Wynn-Williams (the whistleblower) on the News Agents podcast: 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• 1 year ago

She also did an interview with BI "hours before an arbitrator ruled in Meta's favor" https://www.businessinsider.com/former-meta-executive-sarah-...

CaptainZapp• 1 year ago

She 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.

kubb4• 1 year ago

My goodness, the audacity.

dep_b4• 1 year ago

It was fact checked: in Texas

aoanevdus• 1 year ago

I’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?

blitzar5• 1 year ago

Wikipedia is the gold standard. Good enough is asking Grok.

greg_V• 1 year ago

I mean if you're publishing a book, especially a tell-all one, you'd go and talk to sources familiar with the matter who can independently verify whether the statements are true or not to shield you against defamation lawsuits.

Publishing anything dodgy about the biggest tech executives on the planet without that would lead your company getting nuked from orbit

heresie-dabord• 1 year ago

skipped “the industry’s standard fact-checking process."

And the industry in question has compromised its host culture. What is Truth now?

This billionaire corporate sociopath suggested "Facebook remake the news ecosystem with the company at its center."

How is the corporate propaganda business working out socially and politically? I see the stock valuations — perhaps they are a measure of what has been lost in stability and community.

"I’ve seen him face so many choices and lose touch with whatever fundamental human decency"

Including the rush to dismantle fact-checking in his corporation's product, which has become THE news source for millions of citizens.

blogabegonija• 1 year ago

After all what Meta did? Who could have thought. And yet people love to upload photos of their children on pedobook.

isoprophlex• 1 year ago

Good 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?!

max_2• 1 year 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".

kelnos4• 1 year ago

Certainly 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.

fire_lake• 1 year ago

Presumably this is intended to lead into an argument that because we disagree on exactly where the limit should be we shouldn’t have a limit at all. We could make the same case against drunk driving, speed limits, age of consent laws, maximum sentencing…

cjfd2• 1 year ago

The imperfections of 'big' people have much more ramifications than the imperfections of 'small' people. Humans work best together in much more egalitarian groups where the imperfections of individuals are compensated by the strengths of other individuals.

palata2• 1 year ago

Humans are not perfect, whether "big" or "small".

Still, I've never seen a poor human becoming an oligarch.

The problem is not that those billionaires are not perfect, rather that they have too much power.

js82• 1 year ago

What should be the maximum of how big someone should be?

In democracy, the maximum should be 1. One vote per person. That's it.

In practice, we can delegate stuff, but I don't see reason why should people (as adults) accept any sort of authoritarianism in their lives.

mola2• 1 year ago

You probably don't have an issue with limiting government power. Why is limiting an individual reaching power of governments so difficult to fathom?

The problem is power accumulation, "small" people have a harder time limiting my freedoms by abusing their power.

I don't want a king, whether they got to be king by swords or money.

UncleMeat2• 1 year ago

I don't know what the maximum wealth should be, but I do know that it is lower than one billion dollars. So let's start there.

Billionaires are bad for society.

kelnos4• 1 year ago

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?!

Sure, but you can look at this in one of two ways. One is the way you seem to be angling for, where we have an employee who is so disturbingly eager to please that she continues to do work at absurd times when no one should ever expect to be working. The other way is of an employee who has seen how her boss treats employees, and believes that her position, career, and livelihood would be in jeopardy if she wasn't working even in situations where no one should be expected to be working.

I think the second take is more likely. And even if we think it's bizarre that someone could get to the point where they believe that kind of devotion to their job is necessary, it's still alarming and raises red flags that a company culture could cause someone to get to the point that they'd feel that way.

raverbashing2• 1 year ago

The other way is of an employee who has seen how her boss treats employees, and believes that her position, career, and livelihood would be in jeopardy if she wasn't working even in situations where no one should be expected to be working.

Honestly, they need to grow a pair

This kind of pressure (might) have worked for me if I was just out of university and such. But with experience you get to learn your boundaries

You're a top-level executive and you're afraid of being let go by such a silly thing? They can't wait 2 or 3 days for "top level bullet points"? Seems like they depend on you more than you depend on them

theK2• 1 year ago

I am inclined to agree with you but I do have a bit of nuance to add. Pretty sure this is not going to be a popular opinion but I think the second POV you present is apt but dependant on hierarchy level as well as each individual's drive to succeed.

From my understanding that incident happened while she was in a directorial position, not some IC level. At that level one has to constantly actively balance private life and work, no one will do it for you. I am all for supporting employees on all levels (and sure her superior could and should have done some things differently) but if your aspirations and perseverance get you to the point where you are flirting with the C suite, you should also be aware the you own your decisions now.

blitzar5• 1 year ago

If Sandberg was a man it would not have happened.

Woman-on-Woman violence in the workplace has to stop, instead of trying to constantly take each other down they need to be better allies to other women.

Especially true for those that aspire to be role models for successful women and write books about how to "Lean In".

spoonjim2• 1 year ago

I agree for something like a McDonalds employee or even entry level software engineer but this is a senior managerial role at Facebook. Nobody needs to do this job. Unless your spending is out of control you do not need this income. So if it comes with unreasonable demands, I don’t really care. There are problems worth caring about and this ain’t one of them.

zelphirkalt2• 1 year ago

In an alternative version of reality, she would be so distracted, that she failed to give birth and the child died as a consequence of her being completely absorbed in a toxic work culture. That alternative version of reality would be completely believable, and probably many would not be more surprised than now reading this news. This tells us all we need to know about FB.

stef25• 1 year ago

If you have a job at Facebook today, you can get an impressive job somewhere else tomorrow. Nobody should be that connected.

rurp• 1 year ago

It seems pretty extreme to say that her livelihood was in jeopardy given that her salary was probably an order of magnitude more than an average worker. She likely put up with that and other toxic behavior because she was highly ambitious and wanted to keep making immense amounts of money.

This doesn't excuse Sandberg at all, I'm sure she would be a horrifically bad person to work for. But when I read that section I immediately thought of highly ambitious people I've worked with who I could see on either side of that encounter. Such people often are highly materially successful, although most of them don't seem very happy about it.

jocaal3• 1 year ago

None of the people you mentioned's companies sell products your life depends on. If you don't like them, don't use or buy their products. I'm of the opinion that AWS, facebook and tesla cars are genuine trash. I don't know why people use that stuff.

TeMPOraL3• 1 year ago

Because your opinion is wrong. Problems with social media notwithstanding, just because you don't like the person who's running/ruining/most associated with the brand, doesn't make the product itself bad.

Most people don't give two fraks about who Bezos or Musk or Zuckerberg are, and they definitely don't think of them when using products and services from the companies you mentioned.

CorrectHorseBat• 1 year ago

That's a very naive take, not using their products doesn't stop them from negatively impacting society. Look at what Musk is doing over the whole world (and the other two aren't much better, just not as obvious about it). It's not about being fair or jealous or whatever, a single individual having so much wealth and thus power is simply not healthy for society.

whatever1• 1 year ago

You cannot avoid FB. They literally stalk you everywhere and sell your info to advertisers. You are their product whether you like it or not.

z3t4• 1 year ago

The problem is these companies buy competitors or bribe hardware/platforms in order to get market monopoly. So often it's impossible to find alternative products.

goodpoint• 1 year ago

Boycotts might work occasionally but they are often not enough.

cess112• 1 year ago

Have you tried figuring it out? It's not magic or miracle, there are reasons why they're profitable and if it's not obvious you might get surprised and learn something if you try to study it.

One reason is that they are extremely manipulative and strategically exploit people with power over other people's money, notably taxes and what labour generates.

touwer• 1 year ago

Don't foget the less visible guys (yes, it's a gender issue ;) like Thiel, Andreeeesssssen etc

blitzar5• 1 year ago

It's Facebook though - I can not think of a lower stakes workplace.

Should the photo grid be 3 wide or 5 wide... Thank god ChatGPT can now pump out the mindless talking points for them.

poincaredisk• 1 year ago

It's Facebook - a website that is a large part of life to over 3 billion users. A website that can influence elections in major countries, that sometimes shows fake ads and is responsible for (roughly) millions of frauds caused by them, that incited genocides in African countries.

I don't think the stakes are that low.

smokel• 1 year ago

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Might it be an option that correlation and causation are reversed here?

Given the amount of criticsm a typical leader of a large company, or even a country, gets these days, it is no wonder that people with narcissistic traits have an advantage. Somewhat more empathetic people would've given up already, either when they received a large enough reward, or whenever they got serious criticsm on bad practices.

Free tip for a better society: stop worshipping success.

wodenokoto• 1 year ago

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?!

Kind of reminds me of this Simpsons joke: "Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie, and one to listen."

roywashere• 1 year ago

Good 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...

People amassing more money than entire countries just should not happen. "Eat the rich"!

hermannj314• 1 year ago

Tuvalu has a GDP of $70 million. Is that the line?

It is a very small country.

MarceliusK3• 1 year ago

It's not just about one individual pushing for more... it's the entire system that values work over personal well-being and creates an environment where people feel they can't step away, even during life-changing events.

frereubu3• 1 year ago

These kinds of amoral corporate hierarchies will by their nature promote people who give themselves over entirely to the business. It's not that everyone who works there turns into that kind of corporate drone, it just weeds out the people who value more of a work/life balance. If someone is willing to send talking point while they're in labour, a company with the corporate culture of Facebook isn't going to stop them, they're going to be rewarded.

Galanwe• 1 year ago

Noone should be as big as Zuck, Musk, Altman, Bezos...

There should be a level of market cap where you company has to split, period. Megacorps create oligarchs, ruin competition and cheat antitrust.

latexr10• 1 year ago

Or have a tax bracket after which you pay 100%.

coliveira4• 1 year ago

There is a whole industry in the US to celebrate that some people are getting richer. And it is literally funded by some of the richest people in that list.

KaiserPro4• 1 year ago

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?!

Do you want your job still?

sure you can take "holiday", but if you don't please your capricious master, you'll not have a job to come back to.

I can well believe that Sandberg is someone who lacks empathy of her immediate underlings, the mission comes first after all.

PaulRobinson• 1 year ago

Blaming 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• 1 year ago

At 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.

mkoubaa• 1 year ago

The more I learn about Sandberg the more I think she's actually psychotic

ksynwa• 1 year ago

My 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• 1 year ago

you 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_b4• 1 year ago

This 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.

alex11387• 1 year ago

I 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)

jpadkins2• 1 year ago

Bill Gates .. was not able to influence the public discourse.

People forget that the MS in MSNBC stands for Microsoft. Bill Gates invested heavily in media and lobbying in the late 90s / early 00s.

JumpCrisscross3• 1 year ago

you don't become a global ceo without being an absolute killer

This is nonsense. Plenty of good people are wildly successful. The difference is they aren’t addicted to the role, and so see a future for themselves beyond it. Connecting with that future self, in turn, effects their decisions today—at work, at home, in society.

We have a cadre of sociopaths leading our commercial giants. That is a fixable problem. Saying it’s a non-story is just being nihilistic and lazy.

blitzar5• 1 year ago

Boards have a lot to answer for, and in theory at least, this is their responsibility.

It did not work out that well for the OpenAi board however.

wqaatwt2• 1 year ago

Seems like historical founders/CEOs like e.g. Hewlett and Packard were relatively decent people despite being immensely successful.

So at least it was possible back in the day (of course after this many years a lot of details were lost and overall standards and expectations were very different back then).

nonrandomstring2• 1 year ago

you don't become a global ceo without being an absolute killer

This idea is very parochial and American, and it's unfortunate in spreading a wrong idea that gives license for some people to behave as hooligans.

There are massive global companies most of us have never heard of, with CEOs who shun publicity and operate in what is really a mild-mannered but highly competent fashion.

Power also comes from politeness, tact, diplomacy, and the earned attachment of subordinates we call "respect".

They are not constantly immersed in scandal and drama because most of the employees never have much cause to interact negatively.

The cult of US Tech leaders is a vile and embarrassing spectacle of vanity, tantrums, acting-out, histrionics and arrogance. It's very poor human behaviour that harms the perception of business in the wider world, and we should not hold it up as normative.

kelnos4• 1 year ago

Not 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• 1 year 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

kelnos4• 1 year 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.

KaiserPro4• 1 year 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• 1 year ago

We 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• 1 year ago

You realize people (including me) were socializing on the internet before any of these big companies existed, right?

ohgr• 1 year ago

We also still do it!

wyclif4• 1 year ago

There was this open protocol (that still exists!) called IRC. Also: Usenet and email.

kube-system2• 1 year ago

Most people weren’t, until the big companies came around and commoditized it.

Juliate• 1 year 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.

hulitu• 1 year ago

We still haven't found out how to use the internet to socialize,

You don't need to use the internet to socialize.

wisty3• 1 year 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.

guax• 1 year ago

I 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.

3np• 1 year ago

There was plenty of koolaid around.

https://www.map.cv/blog/redbook

Voultapher• 1 year ago

It 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

frereubu3• 1 year ago

The 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%...

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".

soraminazuki• 1 year ago

This is the first time I heard about anyone buying into any sort of "idealism" of Facebook. Isn't Zuckerberg famous for calling Facebook users "dumb f***s" back in the early days for willingly handing over all sorts of information?

https://www.theregister.com/2010/05/14/facebook_trust_dumb/

dabockster3• 1 year ago

It wasn't so much "idealism" than it was the fact that social media was directly responsible for the election of Barack Obama in 2008, the US's first Black president. It also gave him a significant advantage in 2012. Nobody wanted to touch social media out of fear of putting future Democrat POTUS candidates at a disadvantage.

Notice how, in 2017, it's only after everyone starts post mortem evaluating the 2016 election that the "idealism" of social media begins to sour.

rajman187• 1 year ago

other than a bit of open source (PyTorch and React are nice, I guess)

Not to detract from your main point but I think this misses a lot of contributions, eg Cassandra, Hive, Presto, GraphQL, the plethora of publications coming out of FAIR (fundamental AI research) and of course the Llama family of models which have enabled quite a few developments themselves

__loam3• 1 year ago

I think React and GraphQL are pretty impressive in terms of how shitty they've made the developer experience at so many companies. GraphQL especially seems to attract the kind of people who love to misuse technologies built for massive orgs in companies with fewer than 100 employees.

mschuster913• 1 year ago

At least with GraphQL I think the world would be better off if it had never seen the light of day. It's a steaming pile of hyper complex dung.

And for the other projects, their paths are littered with the dead bodies of engineers who had been ordered to chase down one of Facebook's hype technologies just because "Facebook does it so we can follow their best example".

netsharc2• 1 year ago

Facebook also had a tool that would let you give them your username and password for other sites, and would scrape contacts for you.

I remember FB recommending me a contact, I thought "Why does that distinctive name sound familar?". I looked through my e-mails and I had sent a few emails back and forth with the person because of an eBay transaction.

I know I never told FB to scrape my email account, but I'm guessing this person did. And it's certainly not even the address book, but the email addresses from people's inboxes (and why not the names from the "From" field as well. If I was tasked with this I'd even suggest scraping any signature fields).

Hey, at least it bought Zuck a $900K watch.

alterom2• 1 year ago

Facebook is routinely suggesting me contacts that I have met and interacted with offline, the only link to them being an entry in my phone book.

Which, I'm guessing, I allowed Messenger to have access to at some point.

Other than that, it's inference from GPS/location data, which Meta, as far as I know, didn't deny doing.

daralthus• 1 year ago

To be fair, it's more likely they just looked you up on FB.

dspillett• 1 year ago

I don't think that they'd go as far as scanning mailboxes, the return on the effort doesn't seem worth it. More likely the person you were connected to added you to an address book (or perhaps their mailer added you automatically) as someone they have dealt with before. Some anti-spam measures use a source address existing in a connected addressbook as a whitelisting clue.

psadauskas• 1 year ago

Several years ago (~2016), I was working on writing a facebook integration for the company I was working for at the time. I'd deleted my personal facebook account years before that, so I created a new facebook profile to test with. I faked all the information (My actual first name, but the company I worked at for last name, used my company email, made up a birthdate, etc.) I was using a different computer than I'd ever logged in to facebook before, and I was on the company network.

On the first page after signing up, it wanted me to "Add some Friends", and suggested a bunch of people I knew. Including my cousin with a different last name, and who lived several states away.

I've always been fairly privacy conscious, always using an adblocker, but that was downright creepy.

michaelcampbell• 1 year ago

A guy I used to work with was super proud of his privacy stance, and "look at my new IPhone" levels of telling everyone about it. He was routinely bellowing how HIS phone number would never be in Google's hands, by god.

I told him "Don't worry John, they already have it. You're in my contacts list." and the realization that hit him was almost physical.

latexr10• 1 year ago

Has anyone ever seen Facebbok as idealistic?

That’s how Zuckerberg painted it, and no doubt there were people who bought it, at least internally. See the red book.

https://www.map.cv/blog/redbook

anal_reactor• 1 year ago

The number of people who drank the kool-aid is astonishing. To the same tune, I think that if you tell people that politicians lie, majority of them will be deeply shocked, hurt, and offended.

ForHackernews2• 1 year ago

Zuckerberg's Law: The amount each person shares double each year.

Anecdotally, this is almost certainly false. I (and most people I know) are posting ("sharing") less and less. Faced with a surveillance panopticon, I think many normal people are opting out. Peer-to-peer networks are withering.

The internet is reverting to the format of traditional media, with two distinct classes of broadcasters ('influencers') and audience members.

KaiserPro4• 1 year ago

Facebook beat MySpace IMO because it tricked people into using real names

No, FB was a much better product, it was far more connected, any way easier to talk and make friends online. It also was a lot more reliable.

Facebook was not kind to 3rd party devs.

Indeed, they were not kind, mainly because they realised, way too late, that the API they had designed gave third parties way too much access to the "social graph". (see Cambridge analytica, although actually its much more smoke and mirrors than you might imagine)

They needed to cut down that access because 1) they'd been told to 2) they realised that people could extract that data for free, thus denting their analytics advantage that made advertising so lucrative.

firefax3• 1 year ago

FB was a much better product

FB used to have granular privacy controls and no "feed" -- you wrote on someone's wall, they wrote on yours, and people had to actively click on your profile to see the messages rather than have them thrust front and center.

FB abandoned that commitment to privacy and has suffered as a result.

jkukul• 1 year ago

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.

I sometimes wonder what motivations these orgs have in contributing to open source.

My cynical side refuses to believe that the reasons are altruistic (although I'm sure there are altruistic individuals in those orgs!).

I think that the decisions to contribute to open source are calculated business decisions made to benefit the organization by:

* Getting outside contributions to the software that's widely used inside an organization

* Getting more people familiar with the software so that when they're hired they are already up to speed

* Attracting talent

* Improving PR

* Undermining competition (Llama?)

Regardless of the reasons, I think that there's a huge net benefit to society from large companies open-sourcing their software. I just don't think that's an argument to view these companies more favorably.

xorcist• 1 year ago

Commoditizing your complements.

In other words, wiping out your competitor's business moats. If their cashflow is dependent on selling phones, open source your phone operating system to lower the value of the proprietary system.

It can also be used to quickly gain market share where you previously had none and wants to catch up on your competitors. You're bleeding money any way to try to pry open an established market, and open source might be the cheaper route. Most famous examples are perhaps Apple (webkit, cups) and Facebook (AI).

nonrandomstring2• 1 year ago

Has anyone ever seen Facebook as idealistic?

During the "Arab Spring" [0], a lot of people thought Facebook was the dogs bollocks and that the sun shone out of Mark Zuckerberg's arse.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

conartist6• 1 year ago

I'll bite. When I worked there I didn't see the management as idealistic, but the news media vis a vis the employee base had a lot of power. Many times I saw fiery journalism create direct confrontations between Zuck and ordinary employees about things like the company's moderation reaction to the shocking "napalm girl" wartime photo. Back then employees often won, creating shifts on company policy that felt like would not have happened otherwise. At some point it seems that the company decided that it wanted its people to have less of that kind of power though, presumably because it created a liberal company and Zuck seems to see the idea of Facebook as a liberal entity as a serious threat to his company

wslh• 1 year ago

It had the best network effect because of its real name policy

I think it was the best network effect because it started as an elite network in US universities and propagated from there.

jmyeet• 1 year ago

Facebook had the same kind of noble mission Google once had. Google's mission was to make information universally accessible. Facebook's was to connect people.

There are lots of reasons FB beat MySpace. MySpace was really a different product. It was focused on your homepage, really. Facebook was one of the first to introduce an algorithmic feed. I would also disagree that people were "tricked" into using their real names. This greatly helped with discoverability and it's actually what most people want.

As for Facebook scraping third-party sites... citation needed. I mean this was great for Facebook's advertising business but it's really no different to the DoubleClick (and ultimately Google) pixel, which is to say it's a high-level profile of pages you visit (that have the pixel).

As for the games, Facebook didn't kill those. Mobile did. And I'm sorry, but nothing will make me feel sorry for Mark Pincus and Zynga [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3218774

rsynnott• 1 year ago

Has anyone ever seen Facebbok as idealistic?

People who work there often seem to (or at least used to years ago), though I could never really figure out why.

MiddleEndian2• 1 year ago

the idealistic Twitter

Never saw Twitter as idealistic. Seems to just want to show you celebrity gossip. Substantially worse product than Facebook from the start, and really pioneered the attempts at trying to continuously grab people's attention as opposed to just being a tool. Not really a defense of Zuck's products as a whole as Instagram seems to be the same.

Facebook beat MySpace IMO because it tricked people into using real names

That was (and is) a fantastic feature, and I remember being aware of it when I signed up. It was super easy to meet people in real life then find them on Facebook, and then invite them to future events in real life or keep track of what they're up to.

Also Myspace allowing HTML resulted in a bunch of entirely unreadable pages. And the Myspace extended friend network didn't really work because everyone was friends with Myspace Tom (who by all means seems to be a chill guy IRL)

Remember the apps, like zombie games? Facebook was not kind to 3rd party devs.

If anything, Facebook was too friendly to third party devs (which does track with your comparison with Amazon, which I think is far too friendly to third party sellers). Third party apps are anti-features IMO. Should've just stuck to its core functionality, connecting you with people you know, and showing you content from groups that you have chosen to join (which you can still get in your newsfeed if you aggressively block and hide almost everything, which I do lol)

criddell• 1 year ago

Substantially worse product than Facebook from the start

I disagree. When Twitter first started taking off at SXSW twenty years ago it had very little in common with Facebook. There wasn't an algorithm, there were no ads, and there was barely a website. You just received text messages from people you followed. You mostly interacted with it via your phone and for many of us, that meant text entry on the digits keys of a Nokia or Motorola phone. It was delightful. You likely personally knew all the people you were tweeting with.

Facebook was something you did on your computer. There were lots of ads and they had just launched the algorithmic news feed. It was the beginning of something bad IMHO.

duxup2• 1 year ago

IIRC, early twitter really felt like it was there to provide content you wanted.

It was different at the start.

insane_dreamer• 1 year ago

Never saw Twitter as idealistic. Seems to just want to show you celebrity gossip. Substantially worse product ...

That may have been late stage Twitter, but early stage twitter was _not_ that. It became _the_ (only) way to be able to get near real-time information on some unfolding event, usually by the people actually involved, and very useful in that regard. It facilitated realtime communications in a way that FB did not.

ghaff• 1 year ago

I more or less agree with a lot of whaat you wrote, but I'd argue for an ostensibly personal social network, real names are mostly a positive.

Climatebamb• 1 year ago

Amazon? FB was always a lot more evil.

Amazon just build the best logistics network on the planet and leverages this for their monopoly.

FB pushed fake news and everyting else without consideration as long as it grabs your attention which they then sell.

duxup2• 1 year ago

Agreed, a lot of companies I can make an argument for believe in many being "idealistic" at some point. (admittedly I'm using "idealistic" as a very wide ranging concept here)

Not Facebook... if there was some idealism it was way way before I found Facebook.

1vuio0pswjnm72• 1 year ago

"Has anyone ever seen Facebook as idealistic?"

The title refers to a memoir, an autobiographical account of a time period in the author's life.

The word "idealism" refers to the author's idealism, not Facebook's. This is stated in the first sentence of the first chapter.

Idealism routinely causes people to see Facebook as something other than what the facts show.

wisty3• 1 year ago

Ah, nice point.

doktorhladnjak• 1 year ago

I know several people that worked there back in the growth days of the company. They had all drunk the kool aid hard on the work connecting people and making the world a better place. Several of them became very disenchanted when scandals like Cambridge Analytica or the manipulation of the public during 2016 election occurred.

Zuck and the leadership there had really spun a positive, world changing narrative to employees.

2muchcoffeeman3• 1 year ago

Hahahahahaha, sore over losing in Ticket to Ride and Catan. Those aren’t even “serious” games.

KingMob2• 1 year ago

In 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• 1 year ago

I want Elon to play EVE Online, it'll be a shitshow for him

bboozzoo• 1 year 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.

xnyan2• 1 year ago

I only play serious and important board games.

2muchcoffeeman3• 1 year ago

You 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.

MarceliusK3• 1 year ago

The 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.

2muchcoffeeman3• 1 year ago

That’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.

MarceliusK3• 1 year ago

That'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

luma2• 1 year ago

They repeatedly claim (in the article) that the allegations are "old news". That isn't a denial.

Neil44• 1 year ago

All 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.

luma2• 1 year ago

But 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• 1 year ago

Are 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?

soupfordummies2• 1 year ago

But also... there's been a whooole lot of smoke from his "benefit of the doubt" card burning up for a looong time now.

tasuki• 1 year ago

Yes, 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• 1 year ago

I 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.

xnyan2• 1 year ago

Bias 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• 1 year ago

This 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.

paulryanrogers• 1 year ago

Selling an exaggerated or untrue story about powerful people also opens one up to expensive legal processes and consequences.

rchaud2• 1 year ago

What 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.

-__---____-ZXyw• 1 year ago

Zuck: 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.

KaiserPro4• 1 year ago

Can 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• 1 year ago

Has anyone ever seen Facebbok as idealistic?

In my experience they were react coders

piokoch• 1 year ago

What'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!

alex11387• 1 year ago

It'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• 1 year ago

This 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.

paxys• 1 year ago

Don'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• 1 year ago

On 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

areyourllySorry2• 1 year ago

yet you participate in society. curious! i am very intelligent

pc86• 1 year ago

1. 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.

areyourllySorry2• 1 year ago

blame perimeterx

stackedinserter• 1 year ago

What's up, old baits like "ZUCKERBERG TRIED TO STOP THIS BOOK" don't work anymore?

rchaud2• 1 year 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-check...

BLKNSLVR4• 1 year ago

Hypocrisy seems to be a word that fades in meaning the higher one climbs the corporate ladder.

croes• 1 year ago

Aut Zuck, aut nihil.

abc123abc123• 1 year ago

Sounds like a disgruntled social justice warrior. I avoid such people at all costs. They quickly make the environment extremely toxic!

ViktorRay• 1 year ago

One 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• 1 year ago

You 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.

1vuio0pswjnm72• 1 year ago

The 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/cq5zyq0250wo

dang• 1 year ago

Recent and related:

Meta is trying to stop a former employee from promoting her book about Facebook - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43349473 - March 2025 (104 comments)

soupfordummies2• 1 year ago

The 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.

pbiggar2• 1 year ago

Another 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%2...

ToucanLoucan• 1 year ago

Americans 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• 1 year ago

Don't forget the Germans.

thomassmith654• 1 year ago

Social 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.

aprilthird20213• 1 year ago

For what it's worth, Americans still have access to opposing viewpoints. You can view Press TV, Russia Today, etc. Authoritarian states will ban completely access to news it doesn't want its population to read

petesergeant• 1 year ago

This paper seems to mainly suggest that the suppression is happening on the internal platforms that Meta's employees and content-moderators use, for discussions, rather than that they're censoring what I would see an an end user?

pbiggar2• 1 year ago

Yes, that is the mechanism of how the suppression is pushed internally. For details of the actual suppression, see these reports / documentaries:

- https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/meta-systemic-censorship...

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmnQhEQIjKc

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12btf2Oq820

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeaJJU2zHh8 (haven't read this one, but it's from the BBC. For more details on how the BBC restricts Palestine content, see this piece: https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/bbc-civil-war-gaza-israel-bia...)

aprilthird20213• 1 year ago

You're right, this report isn't about the actual censorship of end-user content, but that was also quite widespread. Zuck even himself admitted how the US government would pressure them to censor certain things, but he discussed it in the context of COVID. Similar things happened about Israel-Palestine as well

aprilthird20213• 1 year ago

Note that all the replies to this have conveniently steered the conversation into fighting over the Israel-Palestine war and gotten us to not talk about the actual point, that FB very credibly worked alongside the US gov't to suppress what Americans saw about the war on social media, lots of times suppressing actual journalists with press vests who were reporting from within Gaza at a time when formal press were banned by Israel from entering Gaza (meaning reliance on the ones already inside was crucial)

contrarian1234• 1 year ago

I'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.

s_dev• 1 year ago

What 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?

Traubenfuchs• 1 year ago

It‘s good that they are preventing the spread of fake news and anti-Israel hate content.

Pro Palestine propaganda is already incredibly pervasive and annoying anywhere you look online.

There can be a news article about Dubai chocolate and Palestine brainwashed bots will comment „…ok but what about PALESTINE?“

Muahaas• 1 year ago

I would personally put that in the eye roll category.

The problem is that pro-Palestine camp is a pretty active group of evangelists that inserts itself into every discussion and comments on unrelated posts. You have to moderate them to avoid alienating or fatiguing your normal users.

A funny example is LinkedIn of all places. Personally, I constantly see pro-Palestine propaganda liked or shared from connections. Most of that content is demagoguery or outright lies. Has no place on a work-related so I also report it.

I have no dog in this race but the content of the pro-Palestine crowd is simply low-quality.

thomassmith654• 1 year ago

  The Myanmar stuff we already knew about. It's bad. It seems negligent, but not like Zuckerburg wants to drown babies

Most people set the bar higher than 'does he want to drown babies'.

ruszki• 1 year ago

I had an opportunity to talk about racism with a racist. He said that he was not racist because he didn’t want to kill people of color. He is the kind of person, who doesn’t go into a restaurant if there are non whites in it, even in the safest neighbourhood.

Since then, I’m not sure at all about that. There are definitely a lot of racists, who don’t consider themselves as such. I’m not sure that they are not the majority.

It’s quite possible that this can be generalised, and applied to this too.

the-chitmonger• 1 year ago

It may be boring but we should continue to hold companies to a higher standard than excusing sexual harassment and social irresponsibility at global scale

aredox• 1 year ago

- 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)

Translation: "I am lucky not to be part of the group being exterminated, therefore I am comfortable to brush that under the rug"

damnitbuilds2• 1 year ago

I concur. The whole thing was lame and whiny.

But you'll be downvoted by the hopelessly woke here. As will I.

swores• 1 year ago

Oh those pesky people who want other people to behave like decent human beings rather than assholes. Bloody hopelessly woke!

BLKNSLVR4• 1 year ago

Two 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• 1 year ago

Don'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.

BLKNSLVR4• 1 year ago

Hah! 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.

alex11387• 1 year ago

Yeah 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• 1 year ago

I 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.

TheNewsIsHere2• 1 year ago

I 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.

OrangeMusic• 1 year ago

Is anyone surprised by this?

sherdil2022• 1 year ago

With 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?

Ex-Facebook director's new book paints brutal image of Mark Zuckerberg

Related Stories