Sheryl Sandberg: I want to address some of the claims that have been made
facebook.com
facebook.com
* hiring Republican lobbyists to make a good name for FB
* Sen. Schumer’s apparently personal involvement in protecting FB
* the firing of Alex Stamos, who surfaced Russian Inflirtration
This is just another vapid “we’re sorry, we promise to do better next time” posts. Completely meaningless... does she really think SV will be fooled by this crap?
??? There's an entire paragraph in her post about that.
> * Sen. Schumer’s apparently personal involvement in protecting FB
True, she didn't address that. It doesn't really seem to be one of the major issues people have found offensive.
> * the firing of Alex Stamos, who surfaced Russian Inflirtration
The NYTimes never claimed that Stamos was fired (and, afaik, no reputable source has).
The Stamos firing is mentioned prominently in the article. He seems like the only person with the guts to speak truth to power... and he was fired, his career basically ended, for exposing the truth of a foreign Governments malicious interference? Come on man... this is HUGE. The message She sent with Stamos’ firing was: if you get in the way of our growth, we will git ya. And she hasn’t addressed that in this post.
Odd then that in the many comments on this very website discussing the original article (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18453958), the terms "Schumer", "Senator", "Senate", and "Sen." never appear.
> Ms. Sandberg installed another friend, a well-connected Republican: Joel Kaplan, who had attended Harvard with Ms. Sandberg and later served in the George W. Bush administration.
> Mr. Kaplan prevailed on Ms. Sandberg to promote Kevin Martin, a former Federal Communications Commission chairman and fellow Bush administration veteran, to lead the company’s American lobbying efforts.
She also doesn't address the allegation that she limited the Russia investigation so as not to appear to sympathize with Democrats:
> If Facebook implicated Russia further, Mr. Kaplan said, Republicans would accuse the company of siding with Democrats. [...] Ms. Sandberg sided with Mr. Kaplan, recalled four people involved.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-...
Honestly, after integrating with your platform 6 years ago, I realized that if you want to post something privately on FB - you just don’t post it.
If true, was this by design, to have plausible deniability, much like the willful ignorance on the part of the military top brass when it comes to massacres etc.?
Regardless, some lack of coordination seems real even as now the scandal unfolds:
> Our relationship with Definers was well known by the media... [https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/11/new-york-times-update/]
It never occurred to anyone at Facebook to audit what Definers was doing?
For goodness sake, make sure you don't read the comments on that post.
1) In Facebook's official response [1], they say
> Our relationship with Definers was well known by the media – not least because they have on several occasions sent out invitations to hundreds of journalists about important press calls on our behalf.
But somehow neither Sheryl Sanders nor Mark Zuckerberg [2] were aware of this "well known" relationship.
2) If Definers' job were really as benign as exposing faux-grassroots criticism, why mask the connection to Facebook by going through then? Why wouldn't Facebook respond directly, as they did to the New York Times exposé?
[1] https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/11/new-york-times-update/
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-says-he-didn...
Either they don’t know about major decisions of their own company and they’re too incompetent to lead, or they do know and they’re too corrupt to lead. Either way, they need to go.
It’s literally becoming farcical to see these people apologize over and over again while displaying the same pattern of greed, tone-deafness, and recklessness.
To be fair, are COO's normally aware of every firm that the company is working with? I feel like the CFO would need to know given their role in overseeing company financials, but not sure if it would make sense for a COO to be in the loop.
Why believe them now?
Not that I necessarily think Facebook is thriving right now, but I'm not convinced that Google Trends is a good indicator for established mainstream applications people already own.
Not trying to be cruel, but it seems like social media entities like FB seem almost impossible to unseat from their position of being the new public space of the 21st century.
Nothing over the last day has been overly surprising and pretty much typical facebook behaviour, doesn't seem like near enough to overcome the demand-side economies of scale they hugely benefit from.
He probably will. And again six months after that, and six months after that, and so on. Because it's fun and socially rewarding to predict an enemy's demise. Whether the prediction has any chance of coming true is irrelevant.
Facebook's core utility as the web's primary identity provider, and the network effects underlying that position, form a tremendous "economic moat."
The amount of time users spend on Facebook.com and the iOS/Android apps may decline and cut into their revenue, but their core platform isn't going away for a long time.
Maybe its just me being extremely privacy-conscious, but I only ever had Airbnb and Spotify linked to Facebook. I never wanted to link Facebook further into my life than I had to. When I deleted my Facebook account it was simple to convert my Airbnb account, and I just let the fb-linked Spotify account die with it.
That is one thing i found horrific when i went to delete my FB account. I was denied being allowed to delete it because my spotify was linked and spotify has no functionality to change your authentication method so I had to transfer my collection from 1 account to another just so i could delete my spotify so i could delete my facebook...
Facebook is only used by older folks at this point.
This is objectively false.
Don't vote for a party. Vote for a person, and the person you actually want.
It only seemed to turn into an issue when it became a pr problem.
Absolving them of their responsibility because "it's only a tool" is disengnious, at best.
That's not to say that people should not be allowed to own guns, but I believe it does follow that very careful standards should be in place to ensure that licensed gun owners will use, transport, and store their weapons with the due level of care. Reasonable people could certainly debate what sort of standards those would be, in terms of licensing, restrictions, education, storage and transportation requirements, etc., but given the evidence that availability of firearms contributes to deaths by homicide and suicide, the issue certainly seems worthy of investigation.
Sounds reasonable to me. I would however, also ask you to consider that excessive control leading to difficulty in accessing guns for personal protection is dangerous as well. The question becomes how much power do you want to give government over this issue.
A lot of gun owners cite the concerns that they have over the emergence of a tyrannical government. With guns, these citizens can protect themselves more adequately.
You don't want a scenario where the government of the day rounds up a bunch of deplorables/undesirables and sets out to massacre them. This has happened before and I'd bet that guns in the hands of each of these individuals would have accorded them a fairer chance at defending themselves.
As far as deaths go, governments have killed more people than a few gun toting individuals who clearly have mental issues have. Governments are more dangerous.
It is most likely true that governments have killed more people than individuals with guns acting alone, although I don't think it's as lopsided as you suggest. As an example, the United States death toll in all of World War II was about 400,000. Currently there are over 30,000 gun deaths in the US every year.
The more significant issue though, is the claim that a prevalence of guns would prevent government tyranny to the extent that it outweighs the damage they cause. Speaking of the US specifically, that would first require that the US would have a government at some point that was intent on killing hundreds of thousands of its own people. But not only that, it would require an armed insurrection against that government to actually be successful in stopping it. I'm no fan of the current US government's policies or effectiveness, but both of those events seem astronomically unlikely anytime in the foreseeable future. It is incredibly unlikely that the US government would morph into a murderously tyrannical regime. And if that somehow did happen, it is also unlikely that individual citizens with guns could do much to stop it. On the other hand, it's a fact that access to guns causes tens of thousands of deaths in the US every year.
I just can't see any reasonable argument that the likelihood of the emergence and defeat of a tyrannical government is so great that it is remotely likely to outweigh the existing annual gun death toll. Not to mention that I'm not even suggesting preventing gun ownership, just sensible restrictions. In order to drive a car you need to prove that you know the rules of the road and that your vision is sufficient (or that you will wear corrective lenses). Your car must be registered and in good working order. I'm in favor of a similar licensing process for guns: a thorough, standardized test to prove that you are of sound mind and are aware of proper safe use and storage. Registration so that law enforcement can be aware of potential threats, and can track weapons used in crimes. Restrictions on how guns can be legally stored and transported, and where they can be taken. I'm not an expert, and I could certainly be convinced I'm off on the specifics, but opposing any restrictions on ownership whatsoever seems an untenable position to me.
Those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
I know you’ve heard it before. But I honestly worry we’re suffering from a “times are good why do I need all these liberties my ancestors fought for” phase and it would be really dumb to forfeit them all and then end up back at square one with an actual actively oppressive system governing us and no way to defend ourselves against it.
I'd say that that's a valid I'd concern even as a Trump supporter. All governments are capable of copious amounts of nastiness. Today, my guy could be in power, tomorrow someone else's will be. Therefore, systems that take this into account would perform better than those that don't.
Why, thank you!
> Currently there are over 30,000 gun deaths in the US every year.
Interesting stat. I'll look into this more and see where the rabbit hole leads me. But as I gather so far, the data supports my claims more than yours. Case in point from Wikipedia:
In 2012, 64% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides.
This again points to mental health issues more than guns being the problem. These obviously unwell individuals would have found other ways to exit a world they no longer could bear being in. Sad affair but true. So unless the mental health is addressed, if your goal was to prevent deaths, you would not solve much by taking guns away.
> It is incredibly unlikely that the US government would morph into a murderously tyrannical regime.
Funny that you say that because these same words echo what I heard a holocaust survivor said in a WWII documentary I was watching less than a week ago. The Jews did not think that nazi Germans would ever do what they did to them. They kept saying that Hitler was a passing fad and that in no time (3-4 yrs), he'd be out of power and normalcy would resume. I'd like to think that at the rate with which polarization is happening today, it isn't unfathomable that a murderous regime COULD take power. Even if they weren't murderous, there are other ways to exercise tyranny making death seem a more befitting (or may be even noble) endeavor as opposed to living on one's knees, so to speak.
It never seems dangerous at first. I'd posit that that's why we get insured; we assume that things can be calamitous even when there's little evidence to suggest the same.
That's the difference between my view point and yours. I have a theory on how this ties in to why most preppers are right leaning as opposed to left leaning i.e. perception of risk but I won't get into that right now. The point is, even if there's a small chance of that occurring, because the downside of not being ready is so huge, we must pull all stops to remain safe.
> opposing any restrictions on ownership whatsoever seems an untenable position to me.
I'm glad you see it that way, but a non-trivial number of anti-gun proponents don't see it that way and instead want guns taken away from the bulk of current owners if not all(civilians that is).
I absolutely hear you that tyranny does happen, and is sometimes horrible. I would point to the Chinese persecution of their Uyghur population currently. However, when you multiply the odds of something like that happening in a country like the US, times the odds that an armed rebellion would be successful, times the odds that such an event would save more lives than it took (certainly many people would die in an armed overthrow of the US government), the combined probability is certainly small. Then comparing that to the lives that sensible gun laws would save every year, it seems hard not to support some kind of structure.
Often, yes, giving up freedom is dangerous. But society can't exist with 100% freedom either, because one person's freedom must be balanced against another's rights. There are already many things we agree that people can't do in a civilized society because the harm to others outweighs the infringement on personal freedoms. For instance, we need to accept property rights. As mentioned, we need licensing to drive a vehicle. We are required to pay taxes so that common services can be funded. Some oversight on gun ownership seems, to me, a sensible part of that list. Of course, that's not to say that increased security for decreased freedom is always good; it depends on the particulars of the case.
Edit: btw I absolutely understand the desire to be prepared for extreme events. I have several months of food and supplies stored in case the big west coast earthquake or another disaster hits. I can understand people's desire to own guns for protection, although I don't myself. I don't believe that any of that needs to conflict with sensible laws around registration, licensing, and safe use.
TIL about this. Thanks.
I knew it from the get go. I also know most people here are left leaning but that people haven't really thought about why they take the positions they take. There is a lot of indoctrination. This is by no means an attack on OP or you personally. Survey most people here (HN) without bringing up guns and they will agree with what OP said; people are the problem and not the tools.
Bring up the issue of guns and because it is the 'progressive/liberal/democrat' thing to do, guns(tools) become the problem. If we weren't polarized politically and instead took time to think about issues for ourselves, then our convictions would be consistent and hold true across the board.
I am a black non-american who absolutely agrees with and loves Trump. I look at the data on economics and what he's done for America and wish more people could see the same and forget about what the media says about him. His policies on immigration are common sense and exactly what I would want for my country; people have to come in the right way and some places have to have more scrutiny than others. That doesn't mean I hate humans but rather that I understand that people are different and some worse than others.
That's obviously very ill informed (I'd like a link to this or a pointer to such incidents if you don't mind).
However, could there be more to the story? If there's a threat that the individual(s) might have been radicalized (and there are enough instances where this has been the case), then Americans might have to be smarter about whether they can allow you back into society without severe scrutiny or even detainment where evidence supports it (curious if there's sufficient legislation to resolve this though).
I know citizens eventually got back in but it could have been handled better.
I would debate your other points as well, but I don't want to get too far into the weeds here. My main point is that often what is sold as a "common sense" policy is in fact an overly simplistic one—the policy already in place may have had a great deal of sense behind it, but the world is complicated, and so, so are most sensible policies. Taking rash actions like barring all travel from a list of countries is more likely to do harm than good. (As would an extreme policy on the other side, like opening borders completely. Again, the world is complicated, and difficult problems require thoughtful solutions.)
Well obviously this isn't very useful and may need to be rethought if true. I don't know much about this claim though so I'll read more on it.
> Trump employed a policy sledgehammer
Look, these things aren't easy. May be it is a disproportionate response but I've lived through a period of fear when muslim terrorists bombed/shot up malls and universities in my country. In one incident, two armed civilians (an Israeli and a native) were able to shoot some terrorists and save some innocent lives. A once safe country ended up with us having to lock our offices during the day when business should be conducted. I am a lottle biased on the issue and that's why I took such a hardliner position on it.
This Rousseauian vantage point on the general nature of people is something that's debatable to me. I think that under specific conditions this rings truer (or more false depending on how you look at it) than in other conditions. This whole debate leads to an even deeper rabbit hole that entails things such as the necessity of religion(not to be conflated with fundamentalism / fanaticism). I am more of a Maistrean in my view of humans i.e. that people aren't good at first but under the right conditions, people can behave in a desirable manner that ensures chaos is staved off.
> Cato
I no longer believe Cato represents true conservative ideology and it is not necessarily the most authoritative source on matters conservative policy. It is weak on a lot of issues and infiltrated by people who don't necessarily embody its founding principles. When it was formed by the Kochs, they eventually broke away from another group who thought that they(Kochs/Cato) had sold out their mission for more mainstream appeal. This group was led by Murray Rothbard, and I guess I could say I left with them(Miseseans).
Just concluding the book, Sons of Wichita, and despite the Kochs being viewed as the embodiment of conservative/libertarian ideology in America, I don't think they take it far enough. They're weak on immigration. Very weak. They've built an amazing corporation that their father, Fred, would have been proud of (despite the family feuds) but he most certainly would have disapproved of their politics. He of course came up in the era of communism and saw it as the greatest threat that existed at the time.
Anyway, Tempestn, been a great discussion. I'd like to continue this later via mail as per your profile so I'll be reaching out. You've been great; typically these discussions tend to get out of hand with a lot of name calling but there was none of that here. Kudos for the survivalist initiatives you've undertaken - I don't even know what to say about that except I hope you never need to employ them. :)
Regarding Cato, I'm more interested in the statistics themselves than the source. The travel ban obviously speaks to a real fear people have, and it's one I understand. My perspective though is that the policy itself, while it may serve to assuage those fears through bold action, doesn't actually do anything to reduce the risks that it is theoretically intended to target. I think the evidence given in that article (and others) supports that view. In fact, my belief is that if anything it increases them due to encouraging anti-US sentiment among targeted groups. It's a good thing that it makes people feel better and safer, but I feel that could be done in more positive ways, which wouldn't cause such hardship to good people planning to come to the US, and which might avoid the potential negative consequences in terms of anti-US sentiment as well.
Genuine question, if anyone has more info on this.
I'm curious how we could actually make facebook do something to fix the current situation but nothing really seems like it would work short of threatening their existence.
This company does not seem capable to either learn or clean up it's act.[1]
https://www.fastcompany.com/40547045/a-brief-history-of-mark...