I think the point is that up until she was fired, she was Meta. She wasn’t a random employee, she was their global public policy director. She wasn’t just implementing policy, she was responsible for creating it.

The question remains whether or not she would have written this book had she not been fired.

It’s not like she quit due to her ethical objections

▲

tzs 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The question does indeed remain, but is it a question whose answer matters?

If someone exposes a shady organization why should I care if they did it for ethical reasons or for something less noble like revenge for getting kicked out of that organization?

	▲	mech422 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>> but is it a question whose answer matters? I think it does? "scummy person loses job, finds another way to cash in" almost seems to becoming a trope? I think it raises questions about what is left _out_ of the book, not just what's in it - are the issues raised the worst/most important, or just the ones that will sell the most books? Did we really need someone to 'tell us' meta/social media can be evil? There are reasons that (some) criminals are not allowed to profit from books/movies about their crimes. Anyway, that's just my general feelings about this sort book - I've never heard of the book or the author. And I honestly have no interest in reading it. Based on what I'm reading here - that would basically be rewarding/enriching one of the 'bad actors' ?
	▲	RHSeeger 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> but is it a question whose answer matters Yes. 100%. And the fact that you're not seeing why it does is confounding to me. This person has shown that they are willing to harm society (for their own benefit, presumably); by active choice. And, as such, anything they say needs to be viewed through the lens of "is this person lying for their own benefit". 1. Their previous actions do mean that we should not trust what they are saying outright, we should do (more) work verifying the information they provide. 2. Their previous actions to _not_ mean we should avoid holding other accountable when the information provided turns out to be true. You're asking your question like someone is arguing that this person's information doesn't matter (2); but the point being made is that we should (1).
	▲	bena 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Because it doesn’t really target the issue. Would she go do the same job at Alphabet? X? Probably, if they’d have her. And the only real thing that’d happened is the government has been used to remove other companies’ competition. Hooray I guess

▲

pests 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The question remains whether or not she would have written this book had she not been fired.

Assume the answer is no. What does this change about any of this?

▲

bena 9 hours ago | parent [-]

She’s attempting to use the public to bludgeon Meta.

This is a fight among shitty people. I will not lionize either side. They both contributed to the shitty state of affairs today.

Meta can burn and she can go broke. I’m fine with both

▲

pests 9 hours ago | parent [-]

That's a good reaction to have.

Thankfully she wrote the book so we know about all these bad deeds.

▲

prepend 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I don’t think the book revealed anything new about FB’s bad deeds, though. Was there novel info?

I think its just more exposure for already bad things.

Had she had a trove of emails or something, I might thing differently.

This is quite different from the recent lawsuits that produced novel material and evidence.

	▲	pests 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Knowing something is happening and reading detailed descriptions of them actually occurring is different, IMO. I learned things I didn't know while reading it, at least.

▲

jmull 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A third “whaddabout the author”!

It’s almost as if…