Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments • Hacker News Board

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#371

Post by pdimitar » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 7:23 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #340

edanm wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook is, in general, an unethical company. And this has been known for a long time. If you didn't leave yet you won't leave over this either. You might be right. But you might be wrong. And the way you're framing it, it's either a) someone agrees with you, and has already left FB (meaning you were right), or b) someone has stayed at FB, therefore ethics is unimportant to them. Your dichotomy leaves no space for…

why would someone work at FB if they think its unethical, given almost all of those people can find another job pretty easily.

- Job stability. No lay-offs even amidst the Covid-19 crisis.

- Good salary. The FAANG companies pay really well. Almost nobody else can offer you north of $200k annual salary.

- Prestige.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#372

Post by pdimitar » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 7:26 PM UTC

ethagnawl wrote: post #303

pdimitar wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, everyone has their "enough of that" point. But it seems to me that the people who work at Facebook are after the good money, the prestige and the stable job that is mostly immune to tremors (like the pandemic). I can't generalise all of them of course. But we never had historical data of people mass-leaving big corps over such issues so I'm tempted to believe in my generalisation.

I'm not defending anyone working at Facebook and, on the whole, I think Facebook is extremely problematic. I personally decline semi-annual offers from their recruiters. I'm just saying that it's too easy for outsiders to pass judgement when they know nothing about individual situations and circumstances. To their credit, despite whatever friction they may receive from on high, Facebook does have employees who care a…

> Also, people greatly overestimate how easy it is for others to actually find new jobs.

I don't. I am jobless for one month now and have been semi-actively looking for a job for two-three months. I never worked so hard for free in my life! I know exactly what you mean when you say it's really hard. Many people might underestimate it... but I don't.

My point was -- still is -- those people should not virtue signal if they can't put their wallet where their mouth is. Ask yourself "am I willing to leave this cosy position because I disagree with the policy of my employer?" -- and if the answer is no then IMO you should just save your disagreement for yourself.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#373

Post by pdimitar » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 7:27 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #363

chrisseaton wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you managed to get a job at Facebook in the past doesn't necessarily mean you can get a job anywhere else now. Tech interviews are very fickle. If people studied for a Facebook interview but don't have the time to do that now due to something like caring for someone then they could be in trouble.

I am not saying its guaranteed that they will find a job but tech unemployment was at all time low and even a mediocre engineer could find a job before corona pretty easily. If they are so unqualified to find a tech job in boom season then there were plenty of jobs outside tech too. I don't agree that most of these engineers would never be able to find another job if they quit fb. Maybe a tiny % of protestor, sure.

Your parent poster has a point though -- tech interviews are awfully inconsistent and most people judging you do so based mostly on gut feelings.

You fill questionnaires and do elaborate solutions of rather complex homeworks... only for somebody to judge you by the grey hair in your beard or by you being caught off-guard on only one out of 20-30 questions.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#374

Post by pdimitar » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 7:29 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #313

bamboozled wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people I know that work there still either: 1) Have little concern about the ethics. 2) Care about money. 3) Feel smart and important for working there (I'm smart, I made it). This won't change their view on those things.

What about people that fear they won't be able to get another job? You say 'care about money' to make them sound callous but that could include people who care about being able to put food on their family table.

Those people should accept that they can't put their wallet where their mouth is -- and thus keep quiet.

It's completely okay for one to be unwilling to endanger their livelihood. I can sympathise with everyone having that sentiment.

But don't virtue signal and just move air. If you believe in the cause, prove it. If you can't prove it, get on with your day [and don't spam the internet with stuff you won't ever factually support].

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#375

Post by pdimitar » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 7:33 PM UTC

edanm wrote: post #318

pdimitar wrote: post #57

I think we all know he is not "facing" anything. People that collect big and stable salaries will not change company employment over this. Virtue signalling is cheap, endangering your family's livelihood is hard. "It's very difficult to make somebody understand something, especially if their salary depends on them not understanding it." Facebook is, in general, an unethical company. And this has been known for a long…

> Facebook is, in general, an unethical company. And this has been known for a long time. If you didn't leave yet you won't leave over this either. You might be right. But you might be wrong. And the way you're framing it, it's either a) someone agrees with you, and has already left FB (meaning you were right), or b) someone has stayed at FB, therefore ethics is unimportant to them. Your dichotomy leaves no space for…

The dichotomy is forced on purpose, and as I said in several other comments in this sub-thread here:

Don't virtue signal if you cannot take responsibility for possible consequences (like losing your job). Sure, you might actually disagree with Facebook, your employer. OK. But no point talking about it if you won't do anything.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#376

Post by phone8675309 » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 7:38 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #119

phone8675309 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Who the hell should be the truth police? You? People that have the same beliefs as you? Except Facebook is a private platform. That people use it does not make it a public platform. That would be like arguing that Six Flags over Georgia can't remove you from their park because you started protesting in it. Yes, there are people there, but no, just because they're there and it's a popular place doesn't mean they can'…

> That would be like arguing that Six Flags over Georgia can't remove you from their park because you started protesting in it But in the context of this post, you (and the Facebook employees) are actually arguing exactly the same thing: that Six Flags should be required to ban people who, for example, wear Republican candidate T-shirts to the park.

>But in the context of this post, you (and the Facebook employees) are actually arguing exactly the same thing: that Six Flags should be required to ban people who, for example, wear Republican candidate T-shirts to the park.

That's not at all what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that Facebook and Six Flags are private entities, and private entities are generally allowed to ban whomever they want from their platform/property (assuming they're not breaking the law by doing so). I'm not arguing whether they _should_.

More to the point: Yes, if Six Flags over Georgia wanted to ban people who are wearing Republican Candidate T-Shirt from the park they can do so.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#377

Post by phone8675309 » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

Lammy wrote: post #334

phone8675309 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Who the hell should be the truth police? You? People that have the same beliefs as you? Except Facebook is a private platform. That people use it does not make it a public platform. That would be like arguing that Six Flags over Georgia can't remove you from their park because you started protesting in it. Yes, there are people there, but no, just because they're there and it's a popular place doesn't mean they can'…

> That people use it does not make it a public platform. This is literally the definition of the word public.

It's not remotely the definition of the word public. By that logic, your front yard is public property if you let your neighbors on it.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#378

Post by phone8675309 » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 7:42 PM UTC

mosselman wrote: post #91

phone8675309 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Who the hell should be the truth police? You? People that have the same beliefs as you? Except Facebook is a private platform. That people use it does not make it a public platform. That would be like arguing that Six Flags over Georgia can't remove you from their park because you started protesting in it. Yes, there are people there, but no, just because they're there and it's a popular place doesn't mean they can'…

I don't think your analogy really fits the place Facebook takes in the world, sadly I must add. In some places Facebook is an official channel of communication between people and governments and other public institutions like Universities. Their use of Facebook, or other social media platforms, in this way makes it more like a utility than a private platform. If you really must, you could make the analogy of a billbo…

>In some places Facebook is an official channel of communication between people and governments and other public institutions like Universities. Their use of Facebook, or other social media platforms, in this way makes it more like a utility than a private platform.

By that logic, a university posting a flyer on a coffee shop corkboard makes that corkboard a public forum and the coffee shop must allow anybody to post anything on it.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#379

Post by Lammy » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 8:06 PM UTC

phone8675309 wrote: post #377

Lammy wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That people use it does not make it a public platform. This is literally the definition of the word public.

It's not remotely the definition of the word public. By that logic, your front yard is public property if you let your neighbors on it.

Yes, "public" is where ever the people are.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#380

Post by kinjba11 » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 8:14 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #368

FireBeyond wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These people, groups, organizations are not having their ability to speak stifled. They're having their choice of location stifled. There are plenty of people willing to host views that others might find unpleasant. From Gab, to Voat, to nearlyfreespeech.net, self-hosting and the like. Now if your argument is (as often, theirs is) that those platforms are fringe, not nearly-as-popular, I would theorize that that is b…

I don’t have a problem with people deciding they don’t want to hear certain speech. I have a problem with someone else making that decision for me, unbeknownst to me, and on nuanced issues like contemporary politics (not the fairly straightforward stuff that ends up on Gab.) Even then, I’d still prefer a totally open system that lets me decide what I want to see/not see, because it avoids any potential censorship.

People and systems are deciding what you see and do not see every day. From moderators on HN to the algorithms on every Facebook and Google product. When you search on Google and get a trillion results, you are letting Google choose for you by ranking pages. I am extremely thankful for those services as I would be sad if I had to wade through a trillion results and decide what to see/not see myself. I expect these companies and people to filter out BS I do not want.

None of that prevents me from hosting my own website, or going to a public space, and saying whatever I want.