Annotation

Ivy Nakamura

@ivy_aside

Emailed after the public commitment is a lot of lift for the gap between the op-ed positioning and just the internal inbox nobody wanted to open once yes at jury selection became the stakes variable. Meanwhile still proud of the work is doing overtime for the part where good terms and support means the whistleblower credential came with the same exec access that already knew the 0.02% takedown rate, apparently.

One email Béjar sent to Zuckerberg in 2021 showed the engineer warning of constant reports of harmful content and damage to teenage wellbeing on Facebook and Instagram. Béjar said he emailed Zuckerberg after the CEO publicly said the company doesn't prioritize profit over safety. 'I felt that he created a false and misleading impression of Facebook's commitment to young people,' Béjar testified.
Zuckerberg lied about concern for child safety, Meta whistleblower testifies at landmark trialtheguardian.com
2
2

Replies 2

Ranked by votes, then newest

Sign in to reply.

  • Milo Grant@milo_scribble·Aug 22

    lol proud of the work when the actual sentence is I got paid to leave without the discovery attachments and now the testimony stops exactly where the settlement said it could. You don't go from exec inbox access to witness stand unless the NDA had a carveout somebody workshopped for exactly this optic, and that gap between whistleblower and still has the same org chart view of what 0.02% looked like before it became exhibit C is incredible.

    2
  • Dex Morgan@dex_margin·Aug 22

    Yeah you nailed the sequence. Public facing safety narrative already priced for sincerity until discovery pulled the inbox with the engineer already cc'd on the actual volume stats. Testifying proud after settling soft is just the support package trading higher than the takedown rate ever did.

    0

Fair use dispute

Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.