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

Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 297 posts

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#101

Post by tbrownaw »

thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #83
Syonyk wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it even possible to have effective conversations about these topics online at all? Yes. Just not at scale, and not in a way that prioritizes ad revenue via "engagement" at all cost. Prioritizing longer form, in depth content, and discouraging "rapid reaction hot takes" helps a lot. The social media companies could optimize for this, and you see it on HN with the "Sorry, this particular thread is getting short, s…

This makes sense. Unfortunately, the cynic in me thinks that even if this is technically feasible (i.e. the software could be designed to facilitate healthier discourse), the reality is that the money would never allow it to happen as you rightly point out. So given that, is it actually possible? I don't think so.

I have a ton of blogs in my rss feeds. Occasionally one will have a response to something a different one published a couple days or weeks previously, and sometimes they'll even go back and forth a few times.

Sometimes some of the ones with guest writers will host a similar kind of exchange all in one place.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#102

Post by aahortwwy »

woodruffw wrote: post #82
_8j50 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the place. Don't shit where you eat. When you have these discussions at work people are forced to listen to your view, not only are they not getting paid for that, their response will have consequences. Are you looking for coworkers to reaffirm your belief or an actual discussion? Because if it is the latter the Janet from accounting might feel strongly about capital punishment for women who abort, now shoul…

Where’s the force? Nobody is required to have lunch with me; nobody is required to respond to random off-topic messages on chat applications. We’re taking about the thing that each of us spends 1/3 of our weekdays doing. The majority of our waking hours. It’s one of the largest aspects of all our lives, and is fundamentally derived from the outcomes of very recent political battles over the roles of individual labore…

> If you don’t want that for yourself, then you can stick to sports and weather. That’s fine too!

If I had a private office and didn't have to block out background conversation with noise-cancelling headphones and loud music that would be fine, yeah.

Happy I can mainly work from home nowadays.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#103

Post by unityByFreedom »

Policing speech isn't going to end well for an organization of any size, from countries to companies to families.

If someone is not meeting their work targets due to distractions, deal with that as it's always been handled. You can trust people to manage their own distractions with slight adjustments from authority. Facebook's policy here is micro management to the extreme.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#104

Post by drewcoo »

jjulius wrote: post #45
numair wrote: post #16

https://www.businessinsider.com/facebooks-joel-kaplan-rallie... Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg and the Facebook/Meta executive team are partly responsible for the reversal. No surprise that they don’t want their staff thinking a bit too much about this.

I'm as militantly "Fuck Facebook" as the next guy, but neither Zuckerberg nor Sandberg are named in that article at all . Do you have any actually citable evidence that shows that either of them were involved in the push for Kavanaugh's nomination and/or confirmation?

Alinsky's[1] 13th Rule:

    Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
If it's unnamed senior leadership, pick one person responsible for them. That's the target.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#105

Post by woodruffw »

aahortwwy wrote: post #102
woodruffw wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where’s the force? Nobody is required to have lunch with me; nobody is required to respond to random off-topic messages on chat applications. We’re taking about the thing that each of us spends 1/3 of our weekdays doing. The majority of our waking hours. It’s one of the largest aspects of all our lives, and is fundamentally derived from the outcomes of very recent political battles over the roles of individual labore…

> If you don’t want that for yourself, then you can stick to sports and weather. That’s fine too! If I had a private office and didn't have to block out background conversation with noise-cancelling headphones and loud music that would be fine, yeah. Happy I can mainly work from home nowadays.

> If I had a private office and didn't have to block out background conversation with noise-cancelling headphones and loud music that would be fine, yeah.

These sound like the kinds of employee privileges you’d like to negotiate for at work, ideally with multiple other coworkers backing you. The kind of thing that would ideally come from multiple discussions, some of which would ultimately boil down to your and your employer’s obligations. Let’s hope that won’t be too political for your taste, should you decide to stop working from home!

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#106

Post by gizmo385 »

Flankk wrote: post #34
Mezzie wrote: post #23

Probably a wise decision, and not just because of conflicts between the different sides (I can't imagine there's a large pro-life contingent at Meta), but because of the dumpster fire that intra-political discussions have turned into. Some people feel like discussing this in anything other than emotional terms is inappropriate, some people feel like we need to discuss the legal theory and history behind what happened…

There's way too much emotion in politics these days. I would like to see a return of rational discourse. I've had my fill of both the screaming liberals and the dusty conservatives. Most of the complex issues deal with morality so it's probably all for naught. The tip of the morality pyramid is God for most people. No point using empirical evidence when you don't believe in it to begin with.

> There's way too much emotion in politics these days. I would like to see a return of rational discourse.

Politics affect people's daily lives. Suggesting that people should just ignore the inherent emotional component of these decisions and the impact that they have on our lives is both incredibly unrealistic and quite a privileged position to occupy.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#107

Post by david38 »

Mezzie wrote: post #23

Probably a wise decision, and not just because of conflicts between the different sides (I can't imagine there's a large pro-life contingent at Meta), but because of the dumpster fire that intra-political discussions have turned into. Some people feel like discussing this in anything other than emotional terms is inappropriate, some people feel like we need to discuss the legal theory and history behind what happened…

“The issues” themselves aren’t even fully agreed upon, especially if they’re not believed to be core by everyone.

Everyone believes that the start of human life is a core issue. It’s the basis for the pro-life movement. It’s also a core component of the pro-choice movement (that it doesn’t start that early, thus not killing babies, etc).

There are other things some people believe are core which others don’t believe even exist:

* many people are happy with this ruling because they want to bring mens’ right to “paper abortion” to the front. The argument is if she can do whatever with her body and not be subject to something undesirable for nine months, than he should have the same right since his hardship can last 18 years. The supporting arguments include absolute control means absolute responsibility (if pregnancy was accidental and she decides to keep it, responsibility is hers) and others, along with the greater discussion of perceived bias in family court. Opposing arguments mostly center around the welfare of the child. * some people are of the opinion that “if you’re not a woman, shut up”. Others are using that phrase to support their opinion on trans recognition. Still others are using that phrase to highlight situations where women have gained influence in what many men might call “mens spaces”

The reality is pregnancy is a two-party result and so it’s impossible to expect one party to quietly step aside, more so when there is skin in the game. This involvement in fact helped win R v W in the first place!

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#108

Post by cwilkes »

landemva wrote: post #87
endurance789xx wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree! I feel helpless and afraid of the Supreme court ruling. At the same time, I have seen firsthand how ridiculous such internal discussions have become at Twitter, and they silently take away so much of my work time and put me on the path of depression!

Quoted post unavailable.

And what about the people that can’t afford to or can’t move due to family obligations?

That’s what really annoys me about this — as a reasonably well off tech guy none of this affects me as I have access to ways around them (travel out of state for example). But that’s not true for a vast majority of people that are now living under the tyranny of a minority of zealots.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#109

Post by landemva »

BrainInAJar wrote: post #92
landemva wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Yeah, just abandon all your friends and family (and don't worry about them, they're on their own), whatever life you've got set up and just move! it's easy!

When the issue is controlled at the federal level, those disagreeing would need to move to a different country. Moving to a different State is easier.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#110

Post by adrianN »

landemva wrote: post #87
endurance789xx wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree! I feel helpless and afraid of the Supreme court ruling. At the same time, I have seen firsthand how ridiculous such internal discussions have become at Twitter, and they silently take away so much of my work time and put me on the path of depression!

Quoted post unavailable.

I find it plausible that getting people who vote for the wrong team to move to different states is one of the primary goals of this.
Post reply on HN