Facebook's top lobbyist threw Kavanaugh a victory celebration in his home

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/10/09/bushies-under-the-bed.html


Of course a company like this would have someone like this as a key executive. If Satan existed he’d have a permanent seat on the board of directors.


You’re assuming that FB engineers might not want to enable this behavior.


I would be very very careful about calling someone “serial rapist”.

We may not like the guy, he and his drunk buddies may have well done it but unless there is more evidence than what essentially amounts to hearsay at this point, this is a legally actionable libel. If he sues you will lose - the standard of proof is a bit different in court than a senate hearing.


Many don’t, there was a major uproar already.

That someone works for FB doesn’t mean they necessary subscribe to the policies represented by some of the executives. Also FB is HUGE, people work on different things and for different organizational units - e.g. Whatsapp, Instagram, Oculus … It is obviously everyone’s own decision and judgement whether their moral compass aligns with what the company top is doing but you cannot flat assume that people (who often have zero say in company policies/direction) are complicit merely by working there.







IANAL but I don’t think it’s so easy for public figures.

In the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy, a public figure cannot succeed in a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements in the United States unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice by knowing the falsity or by reckless disregard for the truth. The legal burden of proof in defamation actions is thus higher in the case of a public figure than in the case of an ordinary person.[1]

According to many courts, a public official is a government employee who has, or appears to the public to have, a significant role in the business of government and public affairs. Such people are considered to be held in a position that would draw or even demand public scrutiny. They also are considered to have significant ability to defend themselves regarding such public scrutiny and therefore cannot claim defamation unless the statement is not only proven to be false, but the defamer is proven to have shown reckless disregard for that falsity[2]

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254.
Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967)
Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 133 n. 16, 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2687, 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979).


I like facebook about 25% less now.


Now now, let’s not malign Satan. /s




I seriously can’t fume over this. Given their history, this is expected behaviour.

Also, if I were a lobbyist right now, I would need to make friends with the conservative majority on the supreme court.


“far-right partisan who would embarrass the company”

Embarrass them? Facebook corporate is willfully shameful and proud of it. Why in the hell would they be embarrassed?


I haven’t seen much about Facebook engineers looking for work elsewhere, despite the noise coming from those circles. But my gut tells me that we will see a shift in Facebooks developers being less diverse, and more money-chasing brogrammers. Like attracts like and all, and most of the idealists have already avoided working for Zuck.


Yeah. If you’re still working for Facebook at this point, I don’t think there’s much left that the company can do to embarrass you.


"It’s just business, Sonny. It’s not personal." - Michael Corleone

Every tech company has learned the lesson of the Microsoft lawsuit. Fail to lobby at your peril.

I have no doubt that there would be a Facebook party for Hillary Clinton’s court pick, too.


Dear Sir or Madam, I take umbrage at your comment. As I’m sure you are well aware, members of the the board as well as the C-level executives at Facebook have no souls, and therefore hold no interest for me. However, to imply that I would sully my good name by participating in their depraved money grubbing schemes is, in some measure, insulting. I mean really, even I have standards.


Hum, OK. I guess the US standards are bit different. Here in Europe if you call someone a “serial rapist” you better have evidence or you get your pants sued off you (and rightly so, IMO - such things can and do ruin lives). Someone being a public figure is not a blanket license for libel and/or slander even though the burden of proof is generally higher here as well.

That said, regardless of the legality of it (I don’t think he reads BB anyway), it is a bad form. Stooping down to the level of people like Trump that are constantly throwing around unproven accusations and smears is not a way for a journalist to comport themselves. At least not a journalist wanting to be taken seriously and not as a partisan hack. There are ways to write about this guy without resorting to stuff like this.

I’m not so sure, but I think in this context Cory is acting as a blogger rather than a journalist. But in any case we have two choices. We can believe Brett K or Dr Ford. After counting the number of lies he gave in his confirmation hearing, I believe Dr Ford. So, serial rapist seems to me to be the logical and correct label for Brett. But that’s my opinion spoken from a nation where free speech is a positive and protected right and one where governmental officials don’t get to sue you for having an opinion.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.