
Thousands of Facebook internal documents and emails published online - rahuldottech
https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-internal-documents-executive-emails-published-six4three-court-leak-2019-11
======
mettamage
I'm learning a lot about the early company culture of Facebook. And to an
extent, also about how big tech companies work in general.

Just the past 10 minutes, I've learned that development speed is key, because
it is basically their KPI for execution. I don't fully agree with that, but I
don't think it's a bad heuristic. Speed is a necessary condition to survive
from the competition. I think Paul Graham greatly exemplified that in his
essays, you need to be one of the fastest or at least not be outpaced a lot by
the #1.

I think there's also a lot of interesting startup advice in these type of
documents. The advice may or may not be ethical, but there may be info in
there to understand why Facebook became so big. I wouldn't want to do
something unethical, but it's handy to know what unethical things work and why
because maybe one could distill successful principles from it that are
ethical.

~~~
brudgers
The classic is _The AutoDesk Files_. It has the advantage of being well
organized, curated, and correlated with 35 years of operating history.

[https://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/autofile.html](https://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/autofile.html)

~~~
DonHopkins
[https://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/section2_44_3.html#SEC...](https://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/section2_44_3.html#SECTION00443000000000000000)

What Does Simulation Have To Do With It?

Alan Kay, delivering the keynote speech at the Second West Coast Computer
Faire in 1978 said, ``we decided to focus on simulation in Smalltalk, because
that's the only really interesting thing to do with a computer''. When I heard
this, I was aghast: ``Simulation'', I thought, ``why in the world would people
want to use personal computers to model throughput in a machine shop, or to
calculate the number of toilets[Footnote] in a football stadium''. Certainly
any rational person wanted a personal computer to do real computer science on
it: to write operating systems and compilers so that others could use them to
write programs, and...well, I hadn't thought that out completely.

``Simulation'' had come to mean (at least in the computer science lexicon), a
specific kind of modeling of systems, usually done in an odd simulation
language such as Simscript or Simula. What I only realised years later was
that what Alan Kay was talking about something far more grandiose when he said
``simulation'': getting the whole wide world into that itty-bitty can: the
computer. And yet, ``simulation'' in the limited computer science sense has
already had a great and often little-appreciated impact on computer science as
a whole. In his speech, Alan Kay exhorted people to look closely at Simula-67
for the direction of the future. Simula-67 included (in 1967!) classes, object
orientation, multiple communicating processes, in fact close to a laundry list
of what is currently considered the way to approach complex problems. So
simulation in the small has already influenced the mainstream, and I believe
that simulation writ large will have an impact many times greater.

~~~
jacquesm
We've done great at learning all the lessons from the LISPs, the PROLOGs and
the ALGOLs. But we have not even begun to adopt the lessons from Simula and
it's successor Smalltalk (ruby barely scratches the surface). When we do it
will be a game changer.

~~~
mettamage
I remember there was this blog post about making iphone apps with Smalltalk or
something like that.

If I'd ever want to learn Smalltalk I'd want to start there. It's hard to
prioritize though, there's so much I want to learn.

But since I already bought The Little Schemer to just have something lying
around to seduce me to learn more, I wonder...

What's a good book for Simula or Smalltalk?

~~~
scroot
> What's a good book for Simula or Smalltalk?

For Smalltalk, just start with the Blue Book. It's so well written and
complete -- and most of it still alive in current implementations -- that it's
the best place to start.

[http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks/BlueBook/Bluebook....](http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks/BlueBook/Bluebook.pdf)

------
plickdixon
From Zuck (Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:28AM) Subject: Re:Competitive Mobile
App Install Ads

"I think we should block WeChat, Kakao and Line ads.Those companies are trying
to build social networks and replace us.The revenue is immaterial to us
compared to any risk.

And I agree we should use ads to promote our own products, but I'd still block
companies that compete with our core from gaining any advantage from us. I'd
also keep blockingGoogle but otherwise wouldn't extend the block to anyone
else."

~~~
a13n
These actions may look anti-competitive, but these companies are all foreign
(China, South Korea, Japan). China does anti-competitive stuff to US companies
_all the time_. I doubt there's any legal case for FB abusing monopoly powers
based on this email. If anything, this is just very competent business
decision making.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
> These actions may look anti-competitive, but these companies are all
> foreign. China does anti-competitive stuff to US companies . . .

I don't think there's any exception in the antitrust laws like "but you can be
anti-competitive if the other guy did it first." And anti-competitive behavior
in a Chinese company can hardly justify anti-competitiveness against a
Japanese company or a Korean company. They may all be in Asia but they are
nonetheless different countries. Google is also not a Chinese company, as you
are probably aware.

Also a note: _you don 't have to be a monopoly to be charged with anti-
competitive behavior_. Being a monopoly can raise the standard of behavior and
increase the penalties, but anti-competitive behavior can be illegal on its
own, aside from whether you have an actual monopoly. For more you can start
with
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law)

~~~
a13n
I would guess foreign companies aren't protected by US antitrust law the way
domestic ones are.

------
marvel_boy
Link to the docs: [https://dataviz.nbcnews.com/projects/20191104-facebook-
leake...](https://dataviz.nbcnews.com/projects/20191104-facebook-leaked-
documents/assets/facebook-sealed-exhibits.pdf)

~~~
jaclaz
Small warning for those on metered connection, that is seemingly a 627 MB
.pdf.

~~~
lostgame
Ahaha makes sense - I tried to open it on my iPhone 6S with no luck.

------
danShumway
It'll be a pretty long while before I manage to read through _all_ of this,
but I plan to. Got a small start today, and I'm going to keep going through at
least a few dozen pages every day, and dedicate a couple of weekends to doing
more significant reading.

I'm seeing some people around the Internet arguing that this is pretty typical
and not surprising. The stuff I'm reading so far is surprising to me.

My prediction: similar to the Snowden leaks, there are going to be a bunch of
people who say that none of this is unexpected, and we already knew most of
the main points. With Snowden, those people are downplaying the environment
that existed prior to the leak, and retroactively rewriting the arguments that
people used to make. The same thing will be true with Facebook.

So I have personally had people argue to me on HN (recently) that the reason
Facebook's APIs are so closed-off is because of privacy concerns, particularly
around the 2016 election. If we want an Open Internet, that's fundamentally at
conflict with a private Internet, so really _we 're_ to blame for Facebook's
policies. These documents, to me, make that claim objectively false --
Facebook was talking about closing off access as early as 2012, and the reason
they were doing so was to reduce competition.

There are people on this very thread arguing that really this is just a story
about privacy, and everyone is being mean to Facebook -- and I don't know how
to square that with the memos and emails I just finished reading that argue
the opposite.

> _" When we started Facebook Platform, we were small and wanted to make sure
> we were an essential part of the fabric of the Internet. We've done that -
> we're now the biggest service on Earth. When we were small, apps helped
> drive our ubiquity. Now that we are big, (many) apps are looking to siphon
> off our users to competitive services. We need to be more thoughtful about
> what integrations we allow and we need to make sure that we have
> sustainable, long-term value exchanges."_

Regardless of whether or not anything here is actually illegal, based on what
I've read so far, I feel like (for me) the debate over whether federation is
compatible with privacy is over, barring some kind of crazy revelation half-
way through this document. We should assume that platforms like Twitter are
having the same conversations, and we should assume that when Facebook/Twitter
executives say that closing down APIs is necessary for privacy, that they're
gaslighting.

~~~
Karrot_Kream
The Solid project is building out the W3C ACLs standard to tackle the idea of
fine-grained sharing over federated systems.

~~~
jammygit
Any updates on that? I haven’t seen any news about it since it was announced

~~~
Karrot_Kream
On Solid, or specifically the ACLs proposal? There's a lot of ongoing work on
Solid in the Gitter rooms, forums, and the working groups for the differest
standards. There's also a growing set of (MVP) apps for Solid right now.

------
FillardMillmore
> Facebook has fought vigorously against the release of the documents. It
> continues to argue that the documents do not paint a balanced picture of its
> activities. In an emailed statement, a company spokesperson told Business
> Insider: "These old documents have been taken out of context by someone with
> an agenda against Facebook..."

I sympathize with some (it probably doesn't paint a 'balanced' picture, this
person probably does have an agenda against FB) of what they're saying here
but...4000 pages and the context still can't be established?

~~~
germinalphrase
How many emails, memos, etc. does a large organization create _everyday_? I’m
sympathetic to your point, but surely 4000 documents could be cherrypicked to
present a consistent view of the company (for good or bad).

~~~
computerex
That's ad hominem. The documents should be looked at in their own merit. This
isn't some phrase that can be taken out of context, it's a bunch of formal
documents that can be looked at to establish a line of facts related to FB's
conduct.

~~~
bawolff
Its not an ad hominem.

Its only an ad hominem if someone makes an unrelated personal attack against
the source of an argument. The original argument was that these documents are
suggestive of facebook corporate culture/evilness. A counter argument that the
documents are cherry-picked by someone with a grudge (which may or may not be
true) directly responds to the original claim that you can gleam a fair
picture of facebook based on these documents. Thus it is not an ad hominem
(that's not to say that it is necessarily a good argument)

------
EsssM7QVMehFPAs
A few years after your CEO proposes crazy ideas via email:

    
    
      24 Q. So where you say "which is kind of crazy,"
      25 why was that kind of crazy?
    
      < missing pages ... >
    
      1 A. Again, I don't recall.
      2 Q. Mr. Olivan?
      3 A. Again, I don't recall.
      4 Q. Mr. Cox?
      5 A. Again, I don't recall.
      6 Q. Ms. Sandberg?
      7 A. Again, I don't recall.
      8 MR. GODKIN: All right.

------
JacobSeated
I think we should be skeptical when it comes to Facebook coverage in the
media, as quite a few stories have been pushing these false and speculative
narratives, often including hearsay and personal subjective opinions to
support claims rather than facts.

I mean, if you really believe Facebook is so bad, then do your job as a
journalist and dig though the material yourself. Find the facts, and show us
the exact facts that support your idea. Do not just speculate and make
assumptions. However, you should really understand to leave out irrelevant
off-hand comments made in "the heat" of a discussion. What is important is
what a company is saying publicly, and that it matches up to what they are
doing to a reasonable degree.

I am generally in favor of transparency, but it is not good to blindly and
uncritically leak internal documents and discussions, just look at the whole
pizzagate falseness. But, this is especially true when you know about the
current media sentiment and same said material has just conspicuously been
held by a company in conflict with Facebook.

Personally, I think the bikini app was deprived of decency, and it is amazing
this app is not getting more criticism for what it did in the media. I think
we can all agree the decision to remove access was necessary and a victory for
users, as it is a step towards more privacy focused social media. The fact
that the media will even touch the bikini story is ridiculous.

Those of us who grew up on the internet should be more objective.

Facebook is doing a much better job than their competitors (YouTube, Twitter.
Etc.). The privacy controls are actually really good already, and I am sure we
will only see them improve. We should give credit where credit is due!

I think, ultimately, this is about privacy and the information companies
collect. People are in their right to be worried, but the media should still
be more objective. For example, I wonder why no one cares about anonymization
and increased transparency as solutions, something that rarely seems mentioned
by the media. Companies do not invest in this for fun and giggles. More info
here:
[https://policies.google.com/technologies/anonymization?hl=en](https://policies.google.com/technologies/anonymization?hl=en)

Making more technology open source, including anonymization technology, would
probably help to increase trust.

~~~
cwkoss
> just look at the whole pizzagate falseness

Pizzagate is largely responsible for Epstein's crimes entering the public
zeitgeist. Some of the allegations were bizarre and unfounded, but I credit
Pizzagate for taking down one of the most rampant child sexual abusers in our
nation's history (that we know of). Bill Clinton's rides on the "lolita
express" were brought to light by Pizzagate, which then kept investigating
Epsteins connections to Trump, Acosta, and Epstein's numerous associates.

To put my tinfoil hat on, I suspect that once the internet started releasing
some seeds of truth, the pedo cabal engaged in topic sliding superlative
accusations to muddy the waters about which revelations had a basis in fact.

Does Hillary Clinton really drink the blood of children? Of course not. But,
Epstein was certainly a creep and I'm glad he was taken down. I'd hope the FBI
has done an impartial investigation of the allegations against Podesta and
Alefantis: public found some creepy-but-ambiguous skelletons in their closets
as well.

~~~
Usernamed000
Pizzagate's main propagandist was a Trump supporter who is in court with
Jeffery Epstein's ex-lawyer Alan Dershowitz siding against Epstein's victims.

That supporter, Mike Cernovich, rallied gullible MAGA fanatics around this
conspiracy leading to a gunman storming a pizza place looking for a non-
existent child sex dungeon.

For whatever reason you are hear trying to give it credit when really it was a
deflection campaign. Cernovich didn't detail his work with Alan Dershowitz in
court as much as he promoted outright conspiracy theories to followers known
to be violent.

These people want you to believe Epstein's accusers but not when it comes to
their claims about Trump or Dershowitz. If the accusers are to be believed
then their claims exonerate Clinton while rope Dershowitz and Trump in being
involved with the child sex trafficking centered around Mar-a-Lago.

~~~
cwkoss
Pizzagate was an online popular movement that raised suspicion against
numerous political figures on both sides of the aisle.

I think you're giving Cernovich way too much credit here. Many right-wing
personalities latched onto pizzagate because Bill Clinton flew on the "Lolita
Express" many times, sometimes without secret service, and this made HRC look
bad. Cernovich is a publicity troll: he latched on because it was self
serving. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a 'topic sliding' agent being used
intentionally.

A lack of accusers pointing the finger at Clinton does not exonerate him.

But I agree, from what I've read, it seems that Dershowitz and Trump both had
involvement - at minimum they had prior knowledge of Epstein's crimes.

~~~
Usernamed000
>Pizzagate was an online popular movement that raised suspicion against
numerous political figures on both sides of the aisle.

Don't forget shooting firearms in pizza parlors based on the efforts of people
explicitly biased towards Trump. Why bother trying to make the conspiracy
theory look balanced when it was all about shrieking at Clintons and deep
state democrats.

>Cernovich is a publicity troll

He is in court with Dershowitz, his involvement and apparent pro-rape
statements along with biases towards Trump has resulted in the victim
expressing fear over his propagandist tendencies and his involvement in the
court case in general.

That is more than publicity trolling.

>A lack of accusers pointing the finger at Clinton does not exonerate him.

No it just leaves people relentlessly accusing him despite lack of actual
victim testimony look like hopeless lost biased assholes that would rather
talk about Clintons 24/7 than address named culprits.

Like lets hear about her emails for four more years instead of the current
actions of sitting representatives or efforts of people like Alan Dershowitz,
running public defense of Trump's inner circle. Including his involvement in
writing the foreword for Muller's report published on Amazon well before the
actual report was put out.

~~~
cwkoss
This isn't a situation for partisan tribalism. Everyone with connections to
Epstein should be investigated by the FBI.

Also,

>Don't forget shooting firearms in pizza parlors

You mean the guy who fired a single shot to open a locked closet door because
he thought children were trapped behind it . That was idiotic, but not an act
of terrorism or motivated violence.

~~~
jacquesm
If firing a gun at _anything_ , especially a chunk of metal, in a Pizza Parlor
with people in it isn't motivated violence then what is? Does the word
'ricochet' mean anything to you?

~~~
cwkoss
I think intentionally firing a gun at someone with the intent to kill or
injure is definitely morally distinct from irresponsible tool usage.

Using a gun to open a lock is dumb and irresponsible, but it is not violent.

~~~
jacquesm
Are you seriously trying to argue that he brought the gun because he couldn't
bring a pass-key instead? I'm of the opinion that it didn't get worse because
there wasn't anything behind that door but god forbid if there had been people
there and he could have easily maimed or killed someone just by firing it in
the first place.

Gullible violent idiots should not have access to guns.

~~~
cwkoss
I'm not saying the shooter was right or justified: what he did was dangerous,
irresponsible, and reprehensible.

However, I just think that it is misleading to say "shooting firearms in a
pizza parlor" because that makes it sound like he was spraying a crowd of
people with bullets with reckless disregard for life when he fired only a
single shot at an inanimate object.

It does not appear the shooter attempted to hurt anyone, the whole thing was
the misguided attempt of a likely-mentally-ill person to 'protect the
children'

~~~
jacquesm
Firing a gun is something that you should not do lightly, especially not in
public places. These vigilante morons who are whipped up by their media savvy
puppetmasters are dangerous. Firing a gun should be enough evidence for that,
regardless of what it was fired at. What John Wayne does in the movies could
have ended up very badly IRL. So yes, that was with reckless disregards for
life, you have no way of knowing where that bullet you fired will end up.
Signed, Yours Truly, Deadeye Dick.

Oh, and that's besides the fact that mentally ill people - and most of the
general public - should not have access to guns in the first place.

------
jorblumesea
After reading some of this, I'm a bit blown away by how sophisticated and on
top of their game FB is as a company. Pretty sure my company would not have
these discussions at the same level, or think about things in this way with
such a tight engineering/product/business alignment and thought.

edit: and I work at a "tech company".

------
Fellshard
Could this leak be a response to Zuckerberg's statements regarding Facebook's
political advertising policy?

~~~
RaceWon
> response to Zuckerberg's statements regarding Facebook's political
> advertising policy? reply

Its up to Advertiser to make certain they are Not lying, Not the publication.
Is FB now supposed to verify Every Single Ingredient in a Can of Spam before
they let them advertise a Spam Taco... imho, it's absurd.

~~~
aaomidi
Nah it's actually up for society to decide what they want to allow.

Nearly everyone agrees that political ads that lie are problematic. We the
people think Facebook should do something about that. If they're unwilling to
regulate themselves then we'll regulate it for them.

This can range from putting guidelines all the way to breaking Facebook apart.

It's Facebook's decision what they want their future to be.

~~~
edmundsauto
Zuckerberg has repeatedly asked Congress for clear guidelines, stating that FB
doesn't want to be in the position of arbitrating this issue. Because it's an
incredibly difficult task, politicians have punted.

~~~
Fellshard
It can easily be argued the Zuck is the one punting to Congress. It's a hot
potato subject: whoever holds the potato when the music stops is gonna be
badly burnt.

~~~
citrablue
It seems pretty clear he doesn't want FB to be the decision maker. Guessing
his reasoning is probably more projection than anything else.

But back the "punting" metaphor -- he only has the ball because the US
government never picked it up. Doesn't it seem pretty clear that these
standards (re: hate speech, election ads, etc.) should be made at a national
level, rather than a FB level?

~~~
Fellshard
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Therefore - at least in the US - no, based on the 1stA and the reasoning
leading to it in the first place.

One argument I heard that cuts to the heart of why I think this is a cynical
partisan move: the same publications and media outlets pushing for and
celebrating the removing of political ads from social media are the same ones
who are running those ads in their own outlets. This means that the issue
isn't over ads themselves, but over who has control over the ads.

------
freen
Facebook is the slow motion, global scale, online equivalent of the Fyre
Festival for our whole society.

~~~
stri8ed
If Facebook disappeared tomorrow, I don't think it would make a difference.
The same incentives and behavior patterns still continue to exist, so
something else would fill its place.

~~~
ianai
Probably many things would take its place. Facebook is the internet provider
for certain parts of the world. It’s a very large company with horizontal
integrations that a start up isn’t likely to be able to enact altogether.

------
randomb_1979
I would be much more interested in email leaks about the "friendly fraud" case
[1], because I think Facebook actually broke the law on that one.

[1] [https://www.revealnews.org/article/facebook-knowingly-
duped-...](https://www.revealnews.org/article/facebook-knowingly-duped-game-
playing-kids-and-their-parents-out-of-money/)

~~~
jimrandomh
The phrase "friendly fraud" is long-established credit card industry jargon,
and it does not mean what that article seems to think it means.

~~~
code_duck
According to several passages in the article, that term was used by Facebook.
Whether they use it in the same way as the credit card industry, I don't know.
But if FB means something different, the error does not seem to be with the
article.

------
n8henry
"The British Parliament's Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport Committee
published hundreds of pages in a report in December; they were seized from
Six4Three's founder, Ted Kramer, when he visited the UK."

Can anyone explain how/why the documents were seized?

~~~
Maxious
[https://diginomica.com/parliament-pressure-and-panic-how-
the...](https://diginomica.com/parliament-pressure-and-panic-how-the-uk-
government-got-hold-of-facebooks-confidential-documents)

A parliamentary committee was investigating "Disinformation and 'fake news'"
which also touched on Cambridge Analytica. Once they found out Kramer had
documents from Facebook obtained in lawsuit discovery, they sent him an Order
to Produce Documents. He didn't initially comply but then went to Parliament
without lawyers where he may have then believed he would be imprisoned or
detained in the country for not complying so he turned them over from a
Dropbox account ( Had he asked a lawyer, he would know that UK Parliament
hasn't fined or imprisoned anybody for a long time
[https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jan/30/contempt-
parliam...](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jan/30/contempt-parliament-
bluster-threat) )

~~~
n8henry
Thank you!

------
A4ET8a8uTh0
I am only on page 9 and the pattern appears to be somewhat obvious. I can
kinda understand now the constant anti-FB crusade in media now. FB pissed off
a lot of powerful people getting to where it is.

For the record, I dislike FB myself.

------
in3d
“Competitor” is a fun term to search for in this document.

------
SirLJ
Dupe:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465169](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465169)

------
ogre_codes
Facebook is the dumpster fire nobody wants to walk away from because it's here
everyone hangs out. Everyone tolerates the smell because if they want to show
their mom or their grandmother pictures, it's where you do it. You just have
to ignore the flaming garbage all around you while you flip out your photos.

There is no alternative to Facebook. Even if Twitter were tons better, if you
want to move, you have to drag all your friends along with you.

~~~
ghaff
I don't really disagree with your broader point but...

>if they want to show their mom or their grandmother pictures

Email? Personally that's how I show pictures to my dad. (Well, that and in
person.)

~~~
ogre_codes
Email sucks. It's the dumpster fire where every single web-site I've ever
interacted with thinks they can monopolize my attention. Facebook got big when
email was the dominant way of sharing with family & friends and there are a
lot of good reasons why.

~~~
ghaff
And Facebook isn't? Gmail tabs work pretty well for me. Yes, a lot of email
comes in but my Primary tab is relatively clean. Email is still my primary
communications method for home and work with texting in 2nd place for more
immediate needs.

Added: What email was/is bad for is the family member/friend who just had to
share jokes, what we call memes these days, etc. with 100 of their closest
friends on a daily if not hourly basis. Facebook etc. have largely replaced
that sort of thing and that's for the best. But sharing baby pictures with the
grandparents? Email's is fine, even best, for that.

~~~
ogre_codes
> And Facebook isn't?

I posted as much above. Both are dumpster fires, for different reasons.

------
rubbingalcohol
The documents are not "explosive." The title should be updated to remove
linkbait.

~~~
dang
Ok, we've defused the title above.

~~~
buboard
occupational hazards intensify !

------
gopher2
Business Insider: we haven't read these documents and are "combing through
them" right now, but they're explosive!

~~~
H8crilA
Still better than the breaking news of someone "about to drop documents maybe
next week". "The entire world is watching that suitcase full of nasty nasty
documents, when will it open?".

------
auslander
Someone from Google, please do the same.

~~~
jakeogh
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20697780](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20697780)

