The Facebook Whistleblower Doesn’t Change Anything


The truth must be told, predicting the future of my powerful suit (and I have a cup to prove this) – but you too can make one prediction with all confidence: Recent Facebook revelation, courtesy of Advocate Frances Haugen, he will have zero it affects the rules. There are no new rules, no new rules, or new challenges that need to be challenged. And the story is not Haugen’s evidence or his opinion (not that there are no problems with both), or disrespect for some of the questions received (ditto). Instead, the story contains the hopes we set for blowing the trumpet. The idea we have of whistling is achievable.

If whistling has an archetypal issue, it goes like this. A prominent person in the organization, everyone, faces the injustices that the organization perpetuates. Sometimes the goal is for the benefit of the company, sometimes for personal gain, but in any case, there is a smoke-filled room for men with small cigarettes while everyone else in the world, including supervisors, is watching. At great risk, everyone goes public with their worries: the truth comes out. There is a hearing call, a revelation is explained, rules are given – the control machines move slowly, and the supervisors exchange their cigarettes with chains. Consider the following: Sherron Watkins, Cynthia Cooper, or Daniel Ellsberg.

It has a popular idea of ​​how change takes place, and its popularity is not surprising, because the promised change contradicts some of the original myths of the American people. It is based on the idea of ​​good intentions – in the sense that, without a few wells, regulators (and corporate executives, and legislators) end up relying on the right information for justice. They are built on the idea of ​​the need for a person who can whistle – individually, in a standing ovation. Not surprisingly, in the case of self-centered people (though, the writings of Rodrigo Nunes, left), we carry musicians as a means of judging cases. But today, whistling does not stop their movement; on the contrary, as I have already written. Particularly because it honors the individual, the public, the brave, the whistle-blower mind-boggling opposition to the unscrupulous work necessary to promote security.

These ideas hide some of their complex truths. They hide, for example, the nature of the “whistle” among the recipients. Many people, appropriately, have highlighted the various experiences of Frances Haugen and Sophie Zhang: a good old white woman whose worries do not stop her from saying that Facebook should no a broken, last is an American American woman who sees Facebook ideas and financial interests such as those that are trying to solve these problems. Only one of them heard a religious meeting. We can compare all of Alex Stamos, who resigned from Facebook in 2016 brought the opportunity to your job at Stanford, and compare it all to Timnit Gebru, who was fired from Google for (until everyone can know) having an angry heart when black. As Daniela Aghostino, Nanna Bonde Thylstrup, and I realized we have seen at different times, who tell the truth, it is important. That truth is essential. Stories that have legs — that come from existing ones — are the ones that are the most complex.

Even if the whistleblowers did not take sides (whatever that means), they would not save us. Because of that names the secret behind the trumpets: that truth is the only thing that stands in the middle and in the future in justice. It’s hard to see how, exactly, this idea fits into our reality. In 2002, Sarbanes-Oxley Law, inspired (among other things) by Cooper and Watkins’ revelations, was changed into law after a 423-3 vote in Parliament and 99-0 in the Senate. In contrast, today it is difficult to get even one party vote on what appears to be inconsistencies such as “the government should be. avoid repaying his debt.

In these places, whistling will not save us, because the issue is not a lack of knowledge but a lack of will. And what builds, and transforms cultures, does not seem to be a single, independent individual who speaks the truth, but the social movements that have set new standards and it is clear that there are payers and companies who do not do this.

Does this mean that whistling is meaningless? Of course not. More information can always be useful if it is sent correctly. But the inadequacies of whistling – tell the rest of the newspapers, tell other consultants, and hard work has been done – it is not wise. The liberal interpreters are that the figures really believe this and hard work; that they have the stated faith in the organizations to which they are exposed. The lesser definition is that, to some extent, the external acceptance process: the release of souls and people seeking forgiveness (the removal of which, by accident-only, establishes them a new job as a “legitimate” and “safe” professional critic, with intermediate literary alliance and a especially jobless research).

But if whistling – as usual does not change anything, then what we need is another way of communicating and singing and explaining, a method that uses the knowledge of the musicians as the only tool in a major repertoire, as well as their expertise as part of the knowledge community. interested, savvy, and knowledgeable.

Instead of fulfilling their responsibility by informing supervisors and leaving to start their own business, journalists may want to strengthen, capture, and participate in the already changing environment in this area – a process that is led and managed by people most affected by technology. . Our data, carceral tech rejection network, Detroit Community Technology Work; Both groups and organizations have been working on the problems of transparency, power and data inequality since Haugen (or Harris, or Willis, or, or, or…) rebuked. He may try to get involved in natural security; a team of players overseeing the transition rather than competing for visibility.

Imagine for a second you were transposed into the karmic driven world of Earl Wall Street Journal or New York Times, Frances Haugen (or other independent states) had revealed this. If they had gone to the existing institutions, they were already working on the project, who could count what they had brought and made those organizations the purpose of this article. Imagine if they could have used the interest they brought with them to obscure their minds (human, internal) as to how change appears, but the temporary perception of people who have experienced the evils that whistleblowers find themselves in — self-imposed abruptly. Just imagine if we, the public, and them, the facilitators, could see ideas not only from the Silicon Valley but also from community organizers, street activists, and professionals who understand that what is needed is not a messiah but a group.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *