from Hacker News

Whistleblower tells senators that Meta undermined U.S. security, interests

by c420 on 4/9/25, 8:34 PM with 129 comments

by imiric on 4/10/25, 5:44 AM
A whistleblower is not required to determine that Meta, and all adtech companies, have been severely damaging not just to the US, but to all governments and societies where these platforms are used. They don't need to collude with any adversarial government for this to be true.
The same tools built to manipulate people into buying things, are used to manipulate them into thinking and acting in ways that could be beneficial to someone. Advertising and propaganda use the same tactics, after all. When these tools are accessible to anyone, including political adversaries, it would be naive to think that they're not being used for information warfare.
The Cambridge Analytica leak was just the tip of the iceberg. These companies and agencies are still operating at a global scale, and business is booming. Why adtech companies weren't heavily investigated and regulated after this became public is beyond me. These are matters of national security, which anyone sane would consider more important than any financial or practical value they might have.
Banning TikTok was a step in the right direction, but that's far from the only service that needs to be heavily regulated. And even that decision is flip-flopped and very controversial, so the idea of going beyond must be unthinkable. Yet not doing so will lead to the eventual downfall of the US, and the current western hegemony. The instability we're seeing now is just the beginning, and my only hope is that it doesn't escalate to a major global conflict.
by goldchainposse on 4/9/25, 11:39 PM
> They have threatened her with $50,000 in punitive damages every time she mentions Facebook in public … even if the statements she is making are true,” he said.
Unless Congress asks for the testimony, which is probably why Meta tried to stop the hearing.
by avalys on 4/10/25, 8:04 AM
All I see in this story are a bunch of things that were under discussion at some point, but never happened.
But then, “Meta considered doing business in China, evaluated and negotiated with the Chinese government what would be required to do so, and then did not proceed” isn’t a story that is going to sell a lot of books or get her a lot of attention.
Another tell that this is a stunt for attention and not a genuine issue is her trying to blame China’s progress in AI on Meta’s release of an open-source model.
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 on 4/10/25, 3:17 PM
"Hawley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Crime and Counterterrorism Subcommittee, said that Meta or Facebook tried "desperately to prevent" him from holding the hearing.
"They have threatened her with $50,000 in punitive damages every time she mentions Facebook in public ... even if the statements she is making are true," he said. "Facebook is attempting her total and complete financial ruin. They're attempting to destroy her personally, they're attempting to destroy her reputation and I think the question is, `Why?'"
"What is it they are so afraid of?" Hawley asked.""
Meta has a stellar reputation to protect. Honest people doing honest "work".
by zombiwoof on 4/10/25, 12:30 AM
Kinda wild this is a buried story. This should be top news
by jongjong on 4/9/25, 11:58 PM
It's interesting to think about the way in which the Chinese government operates compared to the government of other countries like the US. The US government was conceived as merely a public utility to fund public works; there was no single ideological basis beyond that. Freedom isn't a "single" ideology because it encapsulates all possible ideologies. The ideology rested with the people themselves to implement on an individual basis. The CCP, on the other hand, was conceived as an ideological movement with specific goals.
Now that the Chinese economy has become so important in the world, the ideological aspects are seeping into the economies of all countries, though it doesn't translate well into western politics. I think this is because the western political system was a limited-trust system, it only worked well when the state was anemic; if the state becomes big (cash-rich), companies will find that they can start to earn significant sums of money from the state, they will redirect their attention to catering to the needs of the state and away from the private sector. Unfortunately the western state has no intrinsic ideology, no intrinsic needs or goals, so it will lead to corruption or faux-adoption of external ideologies (as a means to serve private financial interests).
Western governments cannot form genuine ideological movements (besides the ideology of economic pragmatism) IMO because their foundations aren't designed to support anything besides that. They are founded on the principles of individualism and limited state power.
by neuroelectron on 4/10/25, 3:42 AM
Not really surprising. I'm sure all the major tech companies are engaged in this kind of deal making. The influence of China over Amazon is obvious and there has been cases of algorithmic tampering and account unlocking in their favor.
by lazyeye on 4/10/25, 8:11 PM
You can watch the full Facebook whistleblower hearing here:-
https://youtu.be/f3DAnORfgB8
by vasco on 4/10/25, 3:53 AM
If you're a director of global public policy for seven years, who are you really whistleblowing, the company, or yourself?
I appreciate the information coming out, but in some of these situations I can't help but picture that "the worst person in the room" in regards to the offenses might also end up being the person that then becomes the most holier than thou when they get out of the company.
If you ever met someone who used to work in software ads and ask them about privacy you'll get what I mean.
by Aurornis on 4/9/25, 10:58 PM
> And she says she has the “documents” to back up her accusations.
Then show those documents? It's hard to take these allegations seriously when the mysterious proof is only alluded to, not submitted as part of the testimony.
by sudoshred on 4/11/25, 4:01 AM
Suicide by heart attack is imminent.
by gradientsrneat on 4/10/25, 3:34 AM
I despise Facebook for many reasons, privacy being a major factor. On the other hand, both Trump and Musk own competing social media companies, and the CEOs of other social media companies have attempted to curry their favor. So, there is a potential for conflict of interest here, which could lead to a misproportion of due process. Or, regardless of truthfulness, some form of leverage. Or the trial is just for show. Maybe the accusations are true, but there's a reason this person is coming forward now.
by 9283409232 on 4/9/25, 10:23 PM
> Meta says it regularly discloses the fact that it generates advertising revenue from advertisers based in China but says that doesn’t mean that it operates services in China. It says its services are banned in China.
This is phrasing is very weaselly. All foreign companies in China either partner with or are operated by a domestic company like Alibaba or Tencent. Saying "we don't operate our services in China" is like saying water is wet to people who know what that really means. It doesn't in anyway invalidate the claims made against them.
by curt15 on 4/9/25, 11:25 PM
>In remarks to a hearing convened by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Wynn-Williams alleged that Meta executives worked vigorously to “win favor” with leaders in Beijing to build an $18 billion business in China.
Has Hawley demonstrated similar interest about Elon's business dealings in China? Elon owes much of his net worth to the CCP's Shanghai factory.
by loeg on 4/10/25, 2:22 AM
FWIW, she was fired in 2017 and only now is trying to become a "whistleblower." If the conduct needed whistle-blowing, surely it would have been more timely to come out almost a decade ago.