Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Thursday November 15 2018, @03:33AM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-not-my-fault dept.

Facebook Executives Ignored Warnings, Deflected Blame as Scandals Mounted, Report Says :

From Russian election meddling to a massive data privacy scandal, Facebook has faced a seemingly endless list of troubles. Now, a new report suggests the social network's leadership may be among its biggest challenges.

Over the past three years, CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg ignored warnings, deflected blame and were distracted by other projects as the social network lurched from crisis to crisis, according to a more than 5,000-word report by The New York Times. The paper, which interviewed more than 50 people for the story, painted an unflattering portrait of two executives' handling of the series of scandals, some of which eventually promoted [Ed: prompted?] Congress to ask both of them to testify.

The piece focused on Facebook's handling of fake news posted by Russian trolls ahead of the 2016 presidential, the impact of which Zuckerberg initially dismissed as "crazy," and the company's efforts to deflect blame after data of 87 million users was harvested by political consultancy Cambridge Analytica. The story also touched on in-fighting at the highest of levels of the company.

"Bent on growth, the pair ignored warning signs and then sought to conceal them from public view," The Times wrote. "At critical moments over the last three years, they were distracted by personal projects, and passed off security and policy decisions to subordinates, according to current and former executives."

Facebook told the paper it was committed to addressing the challenges.

Honesty: The absence of the intent to deceive.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:01AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:01AM (#762038)

    With language like that coming from the Five Eyes' paper of record, I almost wonder if Zuckerfuck is offering them resistance. It might also be that the Five Eyes are determined to tear Failbook down regardless of how much they acquiesce to the demands for bourgeois censorship. Of course, there is likely a fair amount of technical ignorance motivating this saber-rattling also.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:21AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:21AM (#762047)

      blah, blah, blah conspiracy theories about deep state and censorship of the people blah, blah

      Or... facebook is a garbage company like everybody on soylent has been saying since day one.

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:03AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:03AM (#762039)

    I can't believe that the all powerful totally-worth-the-salary CEOs could possibly do wrong.

    • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:07AM

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:07AM (#762043) Homepage Journal

      well at least he kow-towed to Congress. Would they have griped at him more sternly had he showed up in his Grey T-Shirt(TM)?

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday November 15 2018, @05:54AM (1 child)

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday November 15 2018, @05:54AM (#762064) Journal

      Sadly, a lot of people really, really want to believe the infallibility of the powerful, want them to be their heroes.

      These sorts of boneheaded mistakes happen over and over, thanks to worship of The Man. There aren't enough hours in the day for a CEO of a large company to attend to every matter that might be important. The classic skill of delegation must be engaged.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Nuke on Thursday November 15 2018, @10:33AM

        by Nuke (3162) on Thursday November 15 2018, @10:33AM (#762102)

        bzipitidoo wrote :

        There aren't enough hours in the day for a CEO of a large company to attend to every matter that might be important.

        Not in detail but they need to know what is going on in the larger sense, recognise what matters, give direction, and have the personality to ensure that their staff obey them and follow that direction. I don't think Zucherberg posseses that personality. But FTFA, it looks like he did have enough hours in the day to work on a cover up :-

        ... the pair ignored warning signs and then sought to conceal them from public view

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:08AM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:08AM (#762044)

    A couple of months ago Zuckerberg said that holocaust denial was just a difference of opinion. And now we find out that dumbass was using Soros conspiracy theories to discredit critics of facebook. For those who have not been paying attention, all Soros conspiracy theories are just anti-semitic dogwhistles. Substituite "soros" with "the joos" to understand the real meaning. Exactly like rothschild conspiracy theories were anti-semitic dogwhistles back in the nazi era. Anti-soros conspiracy theories about him paying for the scaravan in order to bring in brown people to outbreed whites is what got those 11 jews killed two weeks ago.

    I'm sure some proto-nazi will come along to say but "Soros really is a bad guy" - fuck off with bullshit because you can't actually name one thing he's done that is even remotely on par with the hate directed at him. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don't get that shit but they do basically the same stuff with their non-profit foundations as Soros does. And do not even try with that bullshit that soros was a nazi because fuck you.

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:38AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:38AM (#762049)

      Calling it "bullshit" doesn't make it wrong.

      He has publicly said (in an interview) that the best years of his life were when under Nazi rule he got to help get rid of Jews.

      If you're thinking "But he is a Jew!", please note that Hitler's grandmother was too.

      Oh, in case you need a reminder, those 11 Jews were killed by a socialist who hated Trump.

      • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:59AM

        by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:59AM (#762053) Homepage Journal

        george soros best years of my life nazi

        https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/george-soros-nazi-jew-conspiracy-theory-roseanne-barr-twitter-rant-a8377301.html [independent.co.uk]

        He quite his job rather than instruct a bunch of jewish people to go somewhere that they'd be arrested.

        He then spent the rest of the war passing as a Christian. The above article mentions the years of therapy that Soros undertook to deal with the pain of having denied his faith.

        When the right says "SOROS WORSE THAN HITLOR!!!!OMG PONIES1111" what they're really saying is that Soros doesn't toe the corporate line.

        --
        Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:12AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:12AM (#762081)

        He has publicly said (in an interview) that the best years of his life were when under Nazi rule he got to help get rid of Jews.

        No, a bunch of anti-semites edited an interview to make it look like he said that. Here is the head of the Anti-Defamation League saying your shitty anti-semitism is shit. [jweekly.com]

        Oh, in case you need a reminder, those 11 Jews were killed by a socialist who hated Trump.

        Nazis are no more socialist than the DPRK is a democracy. The only reason that nazi "hated" trump was because he thought trump was not enough of a nazi because there were jews in his cabinet.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @09:58AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @09:58AM (#762098)

      I'm sure some proto-nazi will come along to say but "Soros really is a bad guy" - fuck off with bullshit because you can't actually name one thing he's done that is even remotely on par with the hate directed at him. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don't get that shit but they do basically the same stuff with their non-profit foundations as Soros does.

      All of these billionaire pieces of shit are bad guys. They perpetuate our current corrupt, authoritarian system, after all. Just because a lot of critics of Soros are just right-wing lunatics doesn't mean that he isn't actually a bad guy.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @06:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @06:26PM (#762274)

        The thing is that he's no worse than the lot. But he's the one they fixate on. Fox is all in on soros nazi-signalling, its so bad that even senators are getting high [forward.com] on their own supply [youtube.com] now.

        And while the left has its problems with anti-semitism, its orders of magnitude less. If anything guys like Adelson who are objectively anti-democratic authoritarians get off easy.

      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 15 2018, @09:21PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday November 15 2018, @09:21PM (#762352) Journal

        And you continue to NOT name a single thing he's done wrong.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @03:12PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @03:12PM (#762186)

      A couple of months ago Zuckerberg said that holocaust denial was just a difference of opinion. And now we find out that dumbass was using Soros conspiracy theories to discredit critics of facebook.

      Dumbass or dumb like a fox?

      Nah, you're probably right.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @01:10AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @01:10AM (#762445)

      all Soros conspiracy theories are just anti-semitic dogwhistles. Substituite "soros" with "the joos" to understand the real meaning. Exactly like rothschild conspiracy theories were anti-semitic dogwhistles back in the nazi era.

      But if you follow the money [8ch.net] to see who is supporting Islamist front organizations and where this transgender bullshit that popped up out of nowhere came from, the money trail leads back to the Open Society Foundations and the Rothschilds' Astrea, Eranda, Arcadia, Demos, and Avaaz foundations.

      There is now a PR campaign to claim that any criticism of them is anti-semitic. Guess who is paying for that?

      fuck off with bullshit because you can't actually name one thing he's done that is even remotely on par with the hate directed at him.

      He funds al-Qaeda, you uninformed dipshit. [8ch.net]

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 16 2018, @05:26AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 16 2018, @05:26AM (#762548) Journal
        Why exactly are you linking to a gamer discussion forum instead of original sources? There are several problems with that approach such as having to hunt for the alleged claims you make (and frankly, I don't see support for your claims in those links). And I note that the claims for Soros supporting such things seems to be based on dribble like

        I'll shoot my load early. The George Soros network linked up with Muslim Advocates in January 2008 to form the "National Security and Human Rights" project. Part of the project was legal work to oppose illegal actions, such as torture, undertaken in the war on terror. By 2010 it had evolved into a project to suppress the American public will to continue fighting the war, or as they put it in bureaucratese:

        The Campaign will seek to dismantle the flawed “war on terror” paradigm and …. replace the politics of fear and anger with a national resilience that recognizes adherence to core democratic and open society values

        Why is opposing the crazy bullshit of the "War on Terror" supposed to be sinister? Can't you see the problem? It's all fun and games until you are designated the terrorists. You're citing someone who is willing protecting a weapon of that conspiracy.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:42AM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:42AM (#762050)

    Russians spent about $200,000 in an election that cost the candidates $2,000,000,000.

    That is a factor of 10,000. That is 0.01% of the total being spent by Russia.

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @05:07AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @05:07AM (#762055)

      That is a factor of 10,000. That is 0.01% of the total being spent by Russia.

      I know, right? In 2016 it was Hillary's turn to be president. The election was stolen from her because of interference from the russian hackers.

      But now things are different -- all social media accounts of the russian hackers have been shut down once and for all. I look forward to November 2020 when Hillary finally gets her turn... and for the United States' triumphant return back to the right side of history.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @03:15PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @03:15PM (#762188)

        Don't forget the electoral college.

        • (Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:06PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:06PM (#762207) Journal
          I wonder how much Russia spent to sneak the Electoral College in. You'd think someone would notice something like that.
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:16AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:16AM (#762084)

      Russians spent about $200,000

      Public numbers just for the budget of Russia's internet research agency troll-farm alone are $1.25M. [businessinsider.com]

      Expect to see a couple of orders of magnitude more than that when Mueller's report is released.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 16 2018, @05:28AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 16 2018, @05:28AM (#762549) Journal
        The troll farm can be and probably is used for other elections or propaganda.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @08:27AM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @08:27AM (#762090)

      If their purpose was to spread FUD, then they have succeeded beyond their wildest imaginations. Even if they failed to incite a race war [cnn.com], the Russians have gotten a lot of bang for their ruble just from the reaction to their efforts. They will be spending more money to interfere with the 2020 elections.

      • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by VLM on Thursday November 15 2018, @12:33PM (1 child)

        by VLM (445) on Thursday November 15 2018, @12:33PM (#762131)

        spending more money to interfere with the 2020 elections

        Our leftists feel entitled to support from Russian leftist commie leaders for a couple generations, and the Russians not having a commie in charge means our leftists feel hurt and abandoned, so unless Putin is overthrown and replaced by a genetic clone of Lenin before 2020, you can safely assume our local leftists will still have sour grapes that Russians is cleansed of leftism.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:36PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:36PM (#762223)

          There is the crazy again. At leadt conservatives are coming back to their senses after two years of suddenly loving Russia for some strange homoerotoc readon. What you think Putin's shirtless pics were not cas refully crafted intentional pieces?

          Just look at VLM getting all red and sweaty.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @02:36PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @02:36PM (#762164)

        the Russians have gotten a lot of bang for their ruble just from the reaction to their efforts.

        The GOP has spent decades tee-ing it up for them, the russians just swooped in and took advantage of the situation. Even if the russians were totally neutralized the GOP would continue their project to end democracy in the USA. Just look at their attempts to disenfranchise voters this election cycle, especially military deployed overseas who mail in their ballots.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:11PM (3 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:11PM (#762211) Journal

          ... GOP ... GOP ...

          So silly to get partisan at this point.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @06:29PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @06:29PM (#762277)

            callow stilling making bad takes to diddle himself in public. furthermore proof that you can't fix stupid.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:16PM (1 child)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:16PM (#762305) Journal

            So silly to get partisan at this point.

            Democrats want more people to vote. Republicans want fewer people to vote. It's really that simple...

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:13PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:13PM (#762303) Journal

      Russians spent about $200,000 in an election that cost the candidates $2,000,000,000.

      It's illegal for Russia to spend even $1 to affect an election.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Username on Thursday November 15 2018, @12:10PM (8 children)

    by Username (4557) on Thursday November 15 2018, @12:10PM (#762123)

    Didn't the Zuck advocate for and give facebooks data to the obama administration [investors.com] when Obama was running for reelection? Didn't seem to be a problem then. It's not like it's illegal for other countries to run political ads on facebook, or cnn, or whatever medium either. Nothing illegal happened.

    Honestly though, just accept that Hilary was a bad candidate already. It's not like some Hilary supporter saw an ad for orange man and said, "well, shit, I'm gonna vote for that guy." The Hilary vote was already decided months before the election, since she was the only candidate supported by the DNC.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @02:09PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @02:09PM (#762156)

      > It's not like it's illegal for other countries to run political ads on facebook, or cnn, or whatever medium either. Nothing illegal happened.

      WRONG!! Time for you to take a civics class (again?)

      See this page for the actual rules: https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/ [fec.gov]

      Who can't contribute

      Campaigns are prohibited from accepting contributions from certain types of organizations and individuals. These prohibited sources are:

              Corporations, including nonprofit corporations (although funds from a corporate separate segregated fund are permissible)
              Labor organizations (although funds from a separate segregated fund are permissible)
              Federal government contractors
              Foreign nationals
              Contributions in the name of another
      ...

      Partnerships or LLCs with foreign national members

      Similarly, because contributions from foreign nationals are prohibited, a partnership or LLC may not attribute any portion of a contribution to a partner who is a foreign national.
      ...

      Foreign nationals

      Campaigns may not solicit or accept contributions from foreign nationals. Federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local. This prohibition includes contributions or donations made to political committees and building funds and to make electioneering communications. Furthermore, it is a violation of federal law to knowingly provide substantial assistance in the making, acceptance or receipt of contributions or donations in connection with federal and nonfederal elections to a political committee, or for the purchase or construction of an office building. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, acting as a conduit or intermediary for foreign national contributions and donations.

      A person acts knowingly for the purposes of this section when he or she has:

              Actual knowledge that the funds have come from a foreign national;
              Awareness of certain facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that there is a substantial probability that the money is from a foreign national; or
              Awareness of facts that should have prompted a reasonable inquiry into whether the source of funds is a foreign national.

      Pertinent facts that satisfy the “knowing” requirement include knowledge of:

              Use of a foreign passport or passport number;
              Use of a foreign address;
              A check or other written instrument drawn on an account or wire transfer from a foreign bank; or
              Contributor or donor living abroad.

      Definition of foreign national

      A foreign national is:

              An individual who is not a citizen of the United States, and not lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20)); or
              A foreign principal, as defined in 22 U.S.C. § 611(b). Section 611 defines a foreign principal as a group organized under the laws of a foreign country or having its principal place of business in a foreign country. The statute specifically mentions foreign governments, political parties, partnerships, associations and corporations.

      “Green card” exception

      An individual who is not a citizen of the United States is eligible to make a contribution if he or she has a “green card” indicating that he or she is lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:15PM (3 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 15 2018, @04:15PM (#762212) Journal
        The law refers to foreign nationals not foreign countries. It remains quite legal, via sovereign immunity, for countries to play these games.
        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:22PM (2 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:22PM (#762312) Journal

          The law refers to foreign nationals not foreign countries. It remains quite legal, via sovereign immunity, for countries to play these games.

          Nope, wrong again.

          Foreign nationals [fec.gov]

          Definition
          The following groups and individuals are considered "foreign nationals" and are subject to the prohibition:

          Foreign citizens (not including dual citizens of the United States);
          Immigrants who are not lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
          Foreign governments;
          Foreign political parties;
          Foreign corporations;
          Foreign associations;
          Foreign partnerships; and
          Any other foreign principal, as defined at 22 U.S.C. § 611(b), which includes a foreign organization or “other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.”

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 16 2018, @04:27AM (1 child)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 16 2018, @04:27AM (#762533) Journal

            Foreign governments;

            Does Russia agree to this alleged prohibition? I don't recall a treaty that would apply. The story indicates that there isn't actually such a treaty.

            • (Score: 2) by Username on Saturday November 17 2018, @12:05PM

              by Username (4557) on Saturday November 17 2018, @12:05PM (#763056)

              Don't worry, it isn't even prohibited. An ad isn't a contribution. I can make an ad saying vote for Hilary, and it isn't a contribution to her campaign. Inkind contributions require acknowledgement and approval by the campaign. That's why when you see an ad on tv, they say, "I'm so-and-so and I approved this message."

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @02:39PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @02:39PM (#762167)

      orange man

      "orange man bad"

      Give it up already, you weak-ass NPC.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:20PM (1 child)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday November 15 2018, @07:20PM (#762309) Journal

      It's not like it's illegal for other countries to run political ads on facebook, or cnn, or whatever medium either.

      Yes, it absolutely is illegal for foreign nationals to run political ads in a US election.

      Foreign nationals [fec.gov]

      The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:

      Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;
      Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);
      Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;
      Making any donation to a presidential inaugural committee.

      I guess we've arrived at the "yes we colluded but it's not illegal" phase of denials.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 16 2018, @05:09AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 16 2018, @05:09AM (#762542) Journal

        I guess we've arrived at the "yes we colluded but it's not illegal" phase of denials.

        Who again is "we"? Sure, Russia appears to have played some sort of propaganda game in the US. But you miss the important part of said collusion - the evidence for cooperation between the party alleged to engage in illegal activity and the Trump campaign.

(1)