Okay, fine, sure. I will reiterate the case for those who are not engaging with it.
-
Again, just my interpretation. I never felt that "consternation" thing was a real position. But Tuesday follow up seems more explicit: Stamos and Sandberg's relationship deteriorated b/c of "how to handle Russian interference". Then Stamos lost his job.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/technology/alex-stamos-facebook-security.html …
Ok but we know how Stamos wanted to handle it: investigate and disclose. Did Sandberg oppose that? We used to know, now we don't.
-
-
The answer to that question matters.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Obviously I'm politically naive, but in the second story, it says at the top what Stamos wanted: "more disclosure about Russian agents". Rest of story is litany of his failed attempts. End is him and Sandberg becoming estranged in their efforts to handle Russian interference.
-
...That's not enough for questioning Sandberg about her role at FB and why Stamos and other advocates were pushed out? If not, then how is the first edit less vague? It leaves room for Sandberg to say she had "consternation" about Stamos approach, not goalpic.twitter.com/WETetb9Gd1
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.