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

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

#401

Post by thu2111 » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 9:17 AM UTC

ilikehurdles wrote: post #227

jcadam wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the downvoter(s) prove my point. Read between the lines: I'm saying that there are a lot of people selecting themselves out of the candidate pool for the large SV tech companies based on the perception of SV corporate culture being promulgated through the media and forums like this one, further reinforcing the group think in those organizations. That should make you happy.

What an obnoxious strawman you're holding up. If you're not sending political manifestors on the company's listserv you're probably fine. There are right-leaning people at every company. Even facebook. Especially facebook.

That's clearly not the case. People have been harassed by coworkers at Google for something as anodyne as using the word "family":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6605539/Google-staf...

And there are far more stories like that which didn't get into the press.

The right leaning people at tech companies certainly exist. They don't tend to spend all day insisting their coworkers are fired for having left wing views. That's why these firms seem left-leaning - it's those people who kick up all the fuss and make all the demands.

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

#402

Post by dirtydroog » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 10:07 AM UTC

iron0013 wrote: post #396

seneca wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 non…

Interesting, in what industry do you work?

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

#403

Post by seneca » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 12:55 PM UTC

iron0013 wrote: post #396

seneca wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 non…

I've definitely experienced the loud and completely socially-unaware older conservatives as well, but generally not at work. Is your career in danger if you disagree with these people? That danger is where it goes from an undesirable work environment to one that is genuinely bad for society.

If so, that seems like the same dynamic, just with a different hegemony. It's a horrible pattern for a workplace regardless of which view is the orthodoxy.

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

#404

Post by IanDrake » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 4:16 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #400

IanDrake wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, you said hate.

You can say hateful things about a group without wishing them dead.

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

#405

Post by bryan_w » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

malloreon wrote: post #238

ethagnawl wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you didn't leave yet you won't leave over this either. You have no idea why people have stayed and/or how their minds have changed over time. Everyone has their breaking point and this could very possibly be it for some people. Also, your quote should be attributed to Upton Sinclair.

they stayed through: - pro Kavanaugh - genocide in Myanmar - destruction of privacy - facebook accepting it creates extremists

There's two sides to all those issues* that reasonable people can take.

* except the Myanmar thing - but that wasn't an active thing, but rather not being responsible in growth and having incorrect assumptions about state actors

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

#406

Post by bryan_w » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

yladiz wrote: post #343

keiferski wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has nothing to do with the legal definition of free speech. I am not talking about the Constitution. I’m talking about a cultural value. Not the same thing.

You can't say that and use the quote in the original comment. The quote references a right, which comes from laws and the Constitution, yet you mention a cultural value instead. Which are you talking about here, the right of free speech, or the cultural value of free speech?

Rights don't come from laws, we are endowed with them by our creator.

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

#407

Post by jhowell » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 6:06 PM UTC

drevil-v2 wrote: post #393

jhowell wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?"

I asked a question that it seems you've answered with a question. This is the Internet, so the only real "rules" are related to the physical limitations of the hardware in use. As is demonstrated in the article, other rules are more subjective in nature.

Yes, there are things more dangerous than someone who views themselves as objective while sanctimoniously berating other people for having "biased" views. I can name a great many.

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

#408

Post by mnm1 » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 6:09 PM UTC

therealdrag0 wrote: post #309

mnm1 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, it depends on whether the violence incited is "imminent" or not. In this case, I'd say that it was and the government failed to act (surprise! /s) to enforce its own laws because the president is indeed above the law while serving, as the Mueller report found. Lamenting society's loss of free speech in a situation where that free speech isn't even legally protected seems strange to me.

> seems strange Why would it be strange to have values that go beyond what is legal?

Because we don't even have values to back the legal system. It's strange to demand companies act ethically when the legal system allows and encourages them to act unethically.

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

#409

Post by jb775 » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #337

jb775 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence the executive order to take the first step towards protecting free speech. Similar to anti-discrimination laws, "private" companies should have to respect free speech. Especially when a handful of those companies control the dialogue of the populace.

To be clear, you're saying something akin to: bakeries and florists refusing to make wedding cakes (or arrangements) for gay couples? Good. Facebook not giving unpleasant extremities a platform on which to peddle their beliefs? Bad. Now, if you think the religious baker should be forced to make a cake? I disagree, but I at least applaud you for the consistency of your convictions. Note: "they should go to another bak…

That's not a good analogy of my beliefs. A better analogy would be: If a supermarket that has a monopoly on cakes (and it's agreed that eating a variety of cakes is best), and the billionaire owner of the supermarket prefers vanilla cakes, the billionaire owner shouldn't be in the business of refusing to sell other cakes besides vanilla. Especially when they are accepting federal cake money, and have special federal cake protections in place to protect the billionaire owner. And when freedom of cake variety is the First Amendment of the country where said supermarket exists.

I agree they have rights as a private business, but things change when they're a defacto monopoly and they start messing with the 1st amendment at their leisure. Anti-discrimination laws fit the same mold as this topic (i.e. impact what private businesses can do), are you against them being in place? The frustrating thing from my perspective is that the SECOND something impacts a liberal, they are flimsy-floppy with their beliefs....I'm sure I'll be referring back to this conversation in a few months when the tables are turned and I hear a Karen complaining about it impacting them.

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

#410

Post by ben_w » Wed, Jun 03, 2020, 7:36 AM UTC

IanDrake wrote: post #404

ben_w wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, you said hate. You can say hateful things about a group without wishing them dead.

I said "make one group hate another", not "say hateful things".

The post that started this entire discussion wasn’t the POTUS merely saying games should be boycotted if people were not fired for taking the knee — neither FB nor Twitter stopped him from doing that — it was him using the words “the shooting starts”.