seem to not want to prioritize securing facebook from it happening again. Not to be trusted, seems too right-leaning.

angry about FB right now.

because they wanted to work for Buttigieg's campaign. At least according to the article. I'm no fan of facebook or Zuckerberg, but I don't see a problem here.

Please see my post #9.

Thanks for the information but I fear it will get drowned out by the other noise.

It’s likely he passed along resumes to any candidate if that’s what they wanted - it wouldn’t surprise me to see resumes were sent to all most the campaigns.

voers off. Mayor Pete is certainly not lacking people who want to work on his campaign so why even associate with this unpopular, right-leaning billionaire whose lack of attentiveness to the security of his platform allowed Cambridge Analytica and Russians to exploit it and help trump get in office.

Some voters might even think it was intentional.

was used to help trump win.

So... should Zuckerberg not have complied? Or should Buttigieg have tossed the letters of recommendation into the trash because these were facebook employees?

if being perceived as associating with the unpopular Zuckerberg is worth votes he might lose.

No one said running for president would be easy. As you can see from the other posts on this thread, many are not ok with Mayor Pete being advised by Zuckerberg. That's just the way it is.

Yes, but as you can also see from the posts, many of these people didn't actually read the article, and didn't realize Buttigieg was not actually being advised by Zuckerberg (at least based on the article), but rather Zuckerberg was passling along recommendations on behalf of employees who asked for those recommendations because they wanted to work on Buttigieg's campaign.

But I'm glad you can see that the scenario presents a tough decision, and so not as black and white as it may have first appeared.

with recommendations for hires.

Unsolicited.

It might be innocent enough, or, who knows, maybe he's planting people on the Mayor's staff?

Unsolicited.

Here are two scenarios:

1: Solicited

Pete: "Hey, Mark, do you have any recommendations for staff hires for me?"

2: Unsolicited

Mark: "Hey, Pete, I've got some folks here who said they'd like to work for you, and I think they'd be good. Can I pass their info along to you?"

What makes #2 worse?

(And I thought the article made it sound unsolicited all along, so I'm surprised at your "just found out.&quot

IMO he's untrustworthy and still refuses to totally prevent access to his platform by bad actors.

The article says that the employees approached Zuckerberg and asked for the recommendations to be sent (meaning Zuckerberg did not select them, they selected themselves).

Of course you can speculate that the article is wrong, which is possible, but then we're no longer discussing the story as put forth in the article. If I'm willing to accept the story as probably accurate unless shown otherwise, and you're not, then obviously we will not agree on its implications.

reluctant to take measures to ensure his platform is not used again by bad actors. Mayor Pete seems to be a good guy and I don't like that his name is being associated with Zuckerberg. It could cost him votes.

And I'll leave it at that.

All the attempts to downplay this as typical middle-management office workaday are false.

and that's a defensible position, though I remain unconvinced that it's necessarily the best one.

Although he could do that if he wanted, though I doubt he would given what actually happened.

...a better response.

he has for CEO/Big Wigs when they want to give their input. Then go on with however he usually considers his hires with no input from Mark Zuckerberg.

I was just describing the position, that he simply could have chosen to not hire anyone who came with a Zuckerberg recommendation. Please reconsider my post in that light.

I'm trying to make the crucial point that there should be a hard wall between billionaires/CEOs/etc. and our candidates and elected representatives. And our President. They should not be able to swan on in with their lists, expecting that they will be accepted and acted on in any way. There's nothing wrong with hiring people with recommendations. That isn't even close to the same thing. This isn't about recommendations. This is about direct influence by powerful people. When a candidate accepts one of those lists and acts on it, that is a clear sign that they are open for business. Zuckerburg just installed two of his people into that campaign, and if Buttigieg were to win the Presidency, he'd have two people automatically in that administration. A President he knows is open to accepting more lists. That is not ok.

These facebook employees ASKED Zuckerberg for letters of recommendation.

So... should Zuckerberg not have complied? Or should Buttigieg have tossed the letters of recommendation into the trash because they came from Zuckerberg?

As I said, I'm not saying that saying he should toss them into the trash is necessarily a bad answer, but I'm not sure it's the right one, either. But it sounds like that would be the position you would take, right? Hard wall.

No candidate should be open to accepting those lists. It's not what Zuckerberg did that's the scandal, here. Powerful people are always going to flex their muscles. Zuck could have thrown up a dartboard and used that to make the list. It doesn't matter. It's the fact that Buttigieg accepted it an acted on it. He showed he was open to accepting direct influence in that manner. He will bend his ear.

All they did was ask for their CV's to be passed on.

Neither are in policy positions at all with Buttigieg, they are both data analysts

It is an absolute nothing of a story.



Eric Mayefsky

Digital Analytics at Pete for America

last worked at Facebook almost 6 and half years ago

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericmayefsky/


and

Nina Wornhoff

Organizing Data Manager - Pete for America

never worked for Facebook

she worked for a year and half at the philanthropic Chan Zuckerberg Initiative whose mission statement is to "advance human potential and promote equality in areas such as health, education, scientific research and energy"

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ninawornhoff/

him.

But Facebook's role in 2016's Cambridge Analytica psychological warfare was a privacy/data breach that targeted American citizens and basically fucked humanity...


Zuckerberg still hasnt tightened up privacy policies enough and is allowing fake political ads.

I would never trust him to be directly involved inside a campaign, even as an unofficial hiring advisor.

I love Pete, but I do not trust Zuckerberg or his company.

If he accepts Zuckerberg's advice it would be a bad move since the other Dems can criticize him because he has lost the high moral ground. Hard for him to be a stalwart for change when he embraces the methods that drive the swampy environment we're now fighting against.

I dont see how this report is debunked though. It says what your thread does.

Zuckerberg and his wife forwarded resumes to Pete's campaign. Doesn't make them best friends. But Facebook has donated 36k to his campaign and Pete has some, albiet stretched, ties to a few board members.

I dont see it as something nefarious going on, but I am still uncomfortable with Zuckerberg having ANY more political power than he already does through campaign ads on FB. (No, sending out a resume on behalf of an employee is NOT being involved directly. Theres nothing wrong with that)

I dont like Pete any less for it. He's a great person with excellent leadership qualities that I admire.

Its a mountain made out of nothing. I trust Pete. I do not trust Facebook or Zuckerberg.

within FB for Buttigieg and Zuckerberg is certainly not working closely with Pete's campaign, as many within the Bernie twittersphere (some big names included) are spewing all over social media. The same types of people did the same smear job on Warren a while back, over her teaching job.

Gabbard's overall malignant influence on anything (especially as she has sworn to NOT run as a 3rd party spoiler) positively pales in comparison to the influence and nefarious disinfo campaigns run by the Bernie-friendly social media and regualt web media (Jacobin for instance.)

I am NOT speaking of anyone on DU, I am talking the external apparatus, some of it OFFICIAL parts of his campaign (Sirota being a perfect example.) I almost never look at Facebook, but I assume they are poison on that rathole as well.

Twitter is a pure cesspool. I have to laugh when I see anti-Sanders and anti-Gabbard people (which is a completely understandable and valid stance for them) who also happen to be Biden supporters push tweets by trolls like Hoarse Whisperer ( a known liar who has started shitstorms on here via false tweets such as the pure lie that AOC was attacking Pelosi at that climate sit-in, when all AOC did was tell the demonstrators that SHE HAD PELOSI's BACK, ffs) who (Hoarse) also push tweets by known pure scum conspiracy theorists like Greg Olear, Olear being notorious for, amongst other things, labelling BIDEN Handsy MacGee.

Here is the Hoarse Whisperer reweet of a bullshit Olear smear of Buttigieg (Olear smears the vast majority of Dems running for POTUS he is a big Gillibrand fanboy, and says Waren and Harris are the only two real ones left)




and here is Olear smearing Biden

Link to tweet

fuckerberg has messed up Mayor Pete's campaign. I don't trust him for a second, he's too connected to russian oligarchs and should be seen as a pariah in our elections and personal lives.

I like Mayor Pete, don't trust FB oligarch one single bit.

Zuckerburg is up to no good. Count on that.

Pass.

Last edited Mon Oct 21, 2019, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Buttigieg knew Zuckerberg and had done a Facebook Live event with him (actually before the campaign, but that would not be an unreasonable thing for a campaign to do anyway). Later some impressed-with-Pete facebook employees asked to be put in touch with the campaign. So the recommendation was initiated by the people who wanted to work for Pete, not by facebook/zuckerberg.

Question: If a facebook employee went to Zuckerberg and said, "You know Buttigieg, and we'd like to work for his campaign, could you please send a recommendation for me?" what should Zuckerberg have done?

From the linked article, which so many here seem to be commenting about without having read it:

If these people had gone directly to Buttigieg themselves and said hey, we like you! Can we work on your campaign? Entirely different, and the charge of guilt by association would make sense here. But that's not what happened. Even if they were the ones to plant this idea in Zuckerberg's head and asked him because I guess it's believable that it never occurred to Zuckerberg to approach a candidate in this way, he's so famous for never caring about politics. But it doesn't change the fact that Zuckerberg went ahead and did it. And then Buttigieg accepted and hired two of them. Nothing to see here.

Mayor Pete

The title isn’t so accurate

I don't see any indication that there was anything surreptitious about it. Is facebook supposed to put out a press release when they send out a recomendation when an employee who would like to work elsewhere requests it?

I haven't seen anything that indicates that Zuckerberg chose people to recommend, nor that he specifically tried to keep it a secret.

solicited help. An e-mail was sent to them . Did I miss something ?

The truth of the matter is that there's a greater chance of election tampering from this wannabe Machiavelli than the Russians. Woe to any politician who ever finds themselves in this man's debt. Woe to the American people.

Oh, BTW, this shitbird also met with Trump. Anyone else else curious about what they really talked about for 3 hours?

I never mentioned Buttigieg, did I?