Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 410 posts

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

#391

Post by slantyyz »

dexen wrote: post #386
slantyyz wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what one needs to be protected from. If your coworkers are harasssing you for not being political, that's usually the point where you escalate the issue. If that doesn't get you anywhere, that's a signal to leave (and by leave, I mean by not announcing it to the world with a "Why I left X" blog post). Maybe I'm lucky, in my 25+ years of working, I haven't had to deal with that level of unprofessional beh…

Counter-point: the "silence is violence", and the "being silent is being complicit" are somewhat popular suppositions. You can find public posts chiding people with those words for not being politically active enough.

Generally speaking, I treat coworkers "like a customer". I try to be respectful, polite and professional. My work can speak for itself. If that's not enough, then so be it, because I don't have time for other people's bs.

FWIW, I see those chiding posts in my FB feed, and I don't put any stock in them. Most of the people in my feeds post them in lieu of being genuinely active, as though the act of posting is an act in itself. That's their right and choice, and it's my right and choice to ignore them.

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

#392

Post by darkarmani »

keiferski wrote: post #281
znpy wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People misunderstand that quote as much as people misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means that the police can't raid your house for what you think or say or a judge cannot rule against you for what you think or say. But freedom of speech doesn't mean that other people are forced to either listen to you or provide with their own private means (like content hosting or bandwidth) for you…

This line of argument is really tiresome and comes up every single time in discussions like this. It's been done over and over and over again and I'm not really interested in arguing about it. What I am talking about is the culture of defending free speech. The cultural value of defending the right of people you dislike to express ideas that you disagree with, because the value and importance of free expression goes…

> The cultural value of defending the right of people you dislike to express ideas that you disagree with, because the value and importance of free expression goes beyond the short-term unpleasantness of ugly opinions. This is what we are losing

You are really missing the point though. Part of the balance is that one still cannot escape the consequences of their free expression. That's the backpressure that makes it work.

Email is a medium with which lacked that kind of backpressure and suffered by massive amounts of spam. Filtering out spam is preventing "free expression".

If you don't have backpressure, you won't get the free expression you imagine, because the noise will overwhelm everything else.

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

#393

Post by drevil-v2 »

jhowell wrote: post #292
drevil-v2 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ditto

Is there bias in objectivity even if expressed by others?

Is there anything more dangerous than someone who views themselves as objective while sanctimoniously berating other people for having "biased" views?

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"

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

#394

Post by znpy »

keiferski wrote: post #281
znpy wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People misunderstand that quote as much as people misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means that the police can't raid your house for what you think or say or a judge cannot rule against you for what you think or say. But freedom of speech doesn't mean that other people are forced to either listen to you or provide with their own private means (like content hosting or bandwidth) for you…

This line of argument is really tiresome and comes up every single time in discussions like this. It's been done over and over and over again and I'm not really interested in arguing about it. What I am talking about is the culture of defending free speech. The cultural value of defending the right of people you dislike to express ideas that you disagree with, because the value and importance of free expression goes…

my point was more in the line that there are times in history when people and organization have to take sides. refusing to do so means implicitly taking sides.

facebook not using its right to kick violence-mongers off their platform is an implicit way of supporting them.

Facebook doesn't have to support trump or to spread his hate speech. Facebook is choosing to do so.

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

#395

Post by IanDrake »

ben_w wrote: post #257
IanDrake wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing the censorship fans can't seem to understand is the power they are granting. Today the power is for their progressive friends, tomorrow it could be for regressive tyrants. Likely those are the very same people. Just look to history. How many leftist uprising have worked out well?

I wish I could disagree. As I have remarked previously, freedom of speech is important for precisely the same reason that it is dangerous — it can change things. Like most non-Americans, I’m not even close to the USA legal position on free speech. I absolutely do not accept the right to make one group hate another by words alone. What I don’t know is how to achieve that simultaneously with preventing the kind of cens…

So we can censor Democrats that post hate about Republicans?

It fits your guidelines.

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

#396

Post by iron0013 »

seneca wrote: post #294
slantyyz wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> limit conversations to work topics only. That's an awful work environment. Ok, maybe it's because I'm older (but not a boomer), but I don't think that's an awful work environment. I use dinner party rules on social media and at the workplace. That means I avoid talking about politics, religion, etc. It's not because I'm afraid of being outed for my views or anything, it's because I look at work as work, and not a p…

I'm 100% aligned with you on this. The problem is that many people, especially younger millennials, don't follow these social rules. Aside from it being exhausting to listen to them preach their political beliefs at work, you can also be "outed" just by not agreeing with them vocally enough. I've had friends have to leave teams because of this dynamic.

It’s funny, my experience has been the exact opposite. Conservative boomer and older-gen-x employees where I work are very outspoken, loudly rehashing Fox News talking points in the cafeteria, seemingly projecting their voices as loudly as possible to try to get a rise from everyone else. I don’t know if they feel “safe” because they are nearer to retirement and have pensions (which have since been phased out and none of us younger folks have them) or what, but the younger workers keep their heads down and don’t tend to chat about politics.

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

#397

Post by [deleted] »

blueterminal wrote: post #24

People really want Zuckerberg to decide whether posts of the president should be deleted or not? Is this for real? We really need mainstream decentralized applications more than ever. Thoughts of people should not be censored. Who the hell should be the truth police? You? People that have the same beliefs as you? This is just ridiculous. I don't like Facebook but great decision by Mark. Same as they decided to not re…

[deleted]

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

#398

Post by iron0013 »

PunchTornado wrote: post #259
petee wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calls to violence? Yes they should. Freedom isn't limitless, it demands responsibility. The same way you can't yell fire in a movie theater. Inciting people to violence and threatening that same free speech of others, particularly from someone with the biggest soap box in the world, is unacceptable in our country. I thought we decided that years ago

I don't see how Trump's tweet was a call for violence. it wasn't a call to kill people, it could be interpreted as a way to warn citizens.

“I’m not threatening you, I’m just informing you that I’ll kill you if you don’t do what I want”

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

#399

Post by g8tor »

jessaustin wrote: post #250
ilikehurdles wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Run for president, probably.

He's got to do a reality show first. Even better if the theme has something to do with "the lefty nerds at the company he founded don't want him around anymore, so what's our good buddy Mark going to do with all that extra time? You guessed it: custom 4x4 trucks!"

Zuck's Customs would be great. Definitely he wanted the President thing before, but a after seeing the last 3 years, does he really still?

BTW, don't we need to have a woman president before the next white dude anyway?

If that's the case 2028 is the earliest...

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

#400

Post by ben_w »

IanDrake wrote: post #395
ben_w wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I could disagree. As I have remarked previously, freedom of speech is important for precisely the same reason that it is dangerous — it can change things. Like most non-Americans, I’m not even close to the USA legal position on free speech. I absolutely do not accept the right to make one group hate another by words alone. What I don’t know is how to achieve that simultaneously with preventing the kind of cens…

So we can censor Democrats that post hate about Republicans? It fits your guidelines.

Of course!

If the post is “the only good X is a dead X”, I don’t care who is saying it, they shouldn’t be allowed to.

Post reply on HN