FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord • Hacker News Board

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#141

Post by nbzx » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:15 PM UTC

xamuel wrote: post #93

fgrtr3terwy wrote: post #85

Facebook wants their employees to stop talking about politics, even though Facebook by its nature takes stances on deeply political topics. How exactly do you avoid political discussion when you're asking what constitutes hate speech, whether a US president should be allowed to violate Facebook's content guidelines, or to what extent governments can spread misinformation in other countries? If you work at Facebook, y…

>Facebook by its nature takes stances on deeply political topics. Why is that "by its nature"? I don't think that's "by its nature" at all. Phone companies and ISPs facilitate communication between people, but that doesn't necessitate they take political stances on what communication to allow. Why should Facebook? If certain language should be restricted, then laws should be written restricting said language and Face…

But Facebook does take a stance, no? As an example, they probably have used their platforms to show pro-LGTB propaganda (I haven't checked). That shows a clear political leaning in their staff.

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#142

Post by Kiro » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:15 PM UTC

satya71 wrote: post #8

How about bringing the same rules to the wider FB? I just want to look at baby pictures and connect with friends. I don't want to be part of a machinery that spreads misinformation and conspiracy theories.

People use Facebook for different reasons. I use it for Groups and to follow artists but definitely not to see baby pictures.

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#143

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:16 PM UTC

hartator wrote: post #116

Talanes wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot say something into one end of the telephone, and depending on the content of my message, not have it delivered on the other end. That's the difference.

Some govs cut off your phone if you say certain keywords.

[deleted]

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#144

Post by DaiPlusPlus » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

hartator wrote: post #118

fgrtr3terwy wrote: post #85

Facebook wants their employees to stop talking about politics, even though Facebook by its nature takes stances on deeply political topics. How exactly do you avoid political discussion when you're asking what constitutes hate speech, whether a US president should be allowed to violate Facebook's content guidelines, or to what extent governments can spread misinformation in other countries? If you work at Facebook, y…

> Facebook by its nature takes stances on deeply political topics I use Facebook to say in touch with old friends. If they want to share last Tucker's video, not sure why FB should block them if I don't block them.

Imagine if it wasn’t a Fox News talking head, but an incendiary video built on falsehoods being spread to incite violence - or what if it’s 2011 again and ISIS beheading videos are being shared and supposing the evidence showed they were causing ISIS recruitment to increase?

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#145

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

jgacook wrote: post #137

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this comparison works at all except through Godwin's law. Nobody argues that, say, Walmart store clerks bear personal moral responsibility for their company's decisions.

Yes, and this is why nobody is going after, for example, Facebook HQ's janitorial staff for the moral responsibility of Facebook's actions. Their income remains static in spite of Facebook's quarterly profit so it would be unfair to accuse them of trading their ethics for an income. There is a fundamental difference when you're talking about a stock-owning, educated, in-demand software engineer, even if they are "jus…

There's a difference, but it still strikes me as unreasonable to say that all institutional power must be leveraged towards political ends. I do business with a lot of companies whose owners don't agree with my politics, and I'd be unhappy to see them dedicate more of their institutional power towards fighting for things I don't want.

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#146

Post by DaiPlusPlus » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:24 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #128

elliekelly wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's an entirely reasonable stance for management to take at most companies. But not facebook. They've deliberately tailored the platform to be a monetized political outrage machine. Its like ESPN announcing they plan to "curb" sports talk in the office.

If Yankees and Red Sox fans regularly got into shouting matches on the ESPN software development mailing lists, I expect they'd be told to knock it off, and I wouldn't see that as a contradiction of the idea that sports is important.

Even so, in the grand scheme of things sports is utterly inconsequential, politics isn’t.

If your team won the Super Bowl or your nation took home a lot of gold at the Olympics, how does that affect you materially?

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#147

Post by dahart » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:28 PM UTC

stateofnounion wrote: post #132

dahart wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has to discuss diversity at work because there are laws prohibiting discrimination, that's a good thing. Not everyone has to discuss politics at work.

> Everyone has to discuss diversity at work because there are laws prohibiting discrimination How are these two things causally connected in your mind?

Are you implying they're not connected, that discrimination and diversity are unrelated? Your wording makes it sound like some kind of political debate trap you're setting. FWIW, I'm uninterested in arguing here why and whether there should be such laws, or justifying efforts to prevent discrimination. The existence of these laws is a fact, and you're free to study the history and legal precedents for why they exist. Here's a generic but decent starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#148

Post by hartator » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:30 PM UTC

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #144

hartator wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook by its nature takes stances on deeply political topics I use Facebook to say in touch with old friends. If they want to share last Tucker's video, not sure why FB should block them if I don't block them.

Imagine if it wasn’t a Fox News talking head, but an incendiary video built on falsehoods being spread to incite violence - or what if it’s 2011 again and ISIS beheading videos are being shared and supposing the evidence showed they were causing ISIS recruitment to increase?

I would still have a proper judge made a decision than Facebook. I can easily block people that share BS on Facebook but I don't want Facebook to make that decision for me. That overrides my own choice to follow them in the first place.

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#149

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:31 PM UTC

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #146

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Yankees and Red Sox fans regularly got into shouting matches on the ESPN software development mailing lists, I expect they'd be told to knock it off, and I wouldn't see that as a contradiction of the idea that sports is important.

Even so, in the grand scheme of things sports is utterly inconsequential, politics isn’t. If your team won the Super Bowl or your nation took home a lot of gold at the Olympics, how does that affect you materially?

[deleted]

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#150

Post by wmf » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:33 PM UTC

accting_discrd wrote: post #68

samthecoy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you work for a large social network with huge social responsibilities, discussions about ethics ought to be unavoidable, in my opinion. If you're writing accounting software for paper suppliers or something equally banal with few ethical implications, then sure, there's no need (and less reason) to have water cooler conversations about pro-genocide agitprop or whatever. EDIT to add that of course not all departmen…

I work for an accounting software mega-corp in silicon valley. Our CEO sends company wide emails regarding every notable social issue event. After the George Floyd murder we've been told we need to openly discuss racial issues at work. Managers have been told that they must have these conversations, since if they don't, employees may think that they don't care. The company's products are in no way social media platfo…

Maybe you can get some kind of settlement when it inevitably blows up.