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

111–120 of 297 posts

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

#111

Post by epidemian »

_8j50 wrote: post #72
woodruffw wrote: post #44

The learned oblivion in this discussion is very disheartening: every person saying to “leave politics at home” should understand that our basic boundaries around personal and working time came from long and protracted political battles over the powers of our employers. Those battles were fought because people complained, loudly at their workplaces, and won their colleagues over. Abortion is not the labor movement, bu…

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…

As far i understood, this is about allowing or disallowing employees to discuss the ruling. Nobody is talking about forcing people to take part on the discussion or to pick a side —you always have the option not to participate on these things— so i'm not really getting where your point is coming from, sorry.

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

#112

Post by 1123581321 »

woodruffw wrote: post #70
icelancer wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meta isn't banning discussion of politics in groups of employees. It's banning discussion in open channels. If you want to listen to employees talk pro-life / pro-choice, join the groups for that and do so. Keeping Roe v. Wade discussion out of the equivalent of Slack #general or All-Hands email list seems more than reasonable.

The article itself concerns online discussion spaces, but what constitutes an “open channel”? Should employees expect to be reprimanded or potentially punished for talking about abortion rights in a company hallway, because an uninvolved coworker might happen to walk by? The baseline position here (“don’t create political distractions in large channels”) is reasonable on face value. But I have difficultly believing t…

At most companies, open physical meetings would not include private conversations inadvertently overheard. I can see how companies employee some people who don’t understand things like that, panic and overreact. I think most companies would have trouble admitting they employ such people in higher level planning meetings.

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

#113

Post by landemva »

thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #94
landemva wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

It's worth pointing out that states like Texas passed a law that allows Texas residents to sue anyone that aids a Texas resident with receiving an abortion.[0] So if I live in California and my friend from Texas comes out to stay with me while they undergo the procedure, I could be sued under Texas law even though I'm not a Texas resident. It's not as simple as just picking which state you want to live in. Also, pick…

No post body was provided.

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

#115

Post by thrown_22 »

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 is no need to understand anything past the law for why Roe vs Wade was a terrible decision when it was made. The legal theory it was based on has only gotten shakier since then.

Here's Ginsberg explaining why it was on life support 10 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pVnvBCzTyI

In short: we do not have a right to privacy any more. That a majority of rights we took for granted rested on that implied right will come as a shock to a large number of people who supported vaccine passports and mandates and vice versa. You will be forced to show proof of covid vaccination at the court house while having your interracial marriage dissolved.

Welcome to America.

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

#116

Post by jstanley »

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.

> Whichever view you support, move to a State where you will be comfortable.

This really doesn't scale. Firstly, you can't be upping sticks and moving every time a law you don't like is created (or a law you like is repealed). And secondly, you don't need to care about a lot of issues before you find that nowhere on Earth is satisfactory. Then what?

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

#117

Post by rayiner »

tomc1985 wrote: post #97
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…

I attended a rally and march on Roe v Wade last night, and it was alarming to hear just how many other issues rally leaders tossed into the ring, to a large cheering crowd. Some of these were things have a legitimate intersection with reproductive rights -- minority access to equal healthcare, or the various kinds of service ghettos that spring up minority neighborhoods, or other issues SCOTUS has indicated it wants…

The irony is that if it wasn’t for intersectionality, there’s a good chance Democrats could have held their traditional ambivalent stance on immigration, and Trump wouldn’t have gotten elected and wouldn’t have gotten those Supreme Court picks. Now, pro choice Democrats are in the tough spot of being totally dependent on the most socially conservative part of their coalition (Hispanics in the southwest, Black people in the south) to win elections.

Half of Black people in Georgia oppose abortion, but 90% vote Democrat. I wonder what it’s going to do to Democratic turnout in Georgia if donors in New York and California make the 2022 and 2024 elections all about abortion.

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

#118

Post by aahortwwy »

woodruffw wrote: post #105
aahortwwy wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The union I was in most recently had dedicated time for discussing and voting on matters important to members, and scheduled negotiations between our chosen representatives and our employer.

I preferred that to being distracted at work.

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

#119

Post by tyrfing »

woodruffw wrote: post #44

The learned oblivion in this discussion is very disheartening: every person saying to “leave politics at home” should understand that our basic boundaries around personal and working time came from long and protracted political battles over the powers of our employers. Those battles were fought because people complained, loudly at their workplaces, and won their colleagues over. Abortion is not the labor movement, bu…

Harassment or discrimination over religious beliefs, which can include opinions on abortion, is illegal under federal law. Where is the line between arguing and a hostile work environment?

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

#120

Post by unityByFreedom »

CodeBeater wrote: post #18

I think that we are missing the point here. Meta is banning open discussion on their internal platform. It does not mean that you can't chat about it with a co-worker that also happens to be your friend. I think it's reasonable. It has nothing to do with not getting people distracted, but all to do with having one less problem to deal with.

Thing is, by banning a certain viewpoint on an open platform, you are promoting another viewpoint.

Those who want to be vocal about this right now are largely opposed to the court's decision. So this does not appear to be a neutral decision.

Post reply on HN