131–140 of 307 posts
I read this as yet another shot from the NYT against tech in general. It's propaganda.
Serious questions: Are the people that work at Facebook proud to work there? What is morale like inside that place? When someone asks you what you do, and you say "I work for Facebook," what is their typical reaction? Not trying to be snarky. I'm genuinely curious how these perceptions/feelings might have changed over the past few years.
I too am curious about the internal motivations of people who work for Facebook. Something I've noticed about myself is that I would be okay with working for a US defense contractor, ie a company which makes machines that literally kill people, yet I could not picture myself working at Facebook. I struggle to square this morally, because I also believe that defense contractors have a greater net negative impact on so…
The US military has a pretty clear mission, however you feel about it.
Facebook: "Give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.” [0]
I'm not sure what actionable guidance I'd be able to draw from the above.
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/22/bring-the-world-closer-tog...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about gaffes like the 1619 Project, the shortcomings and errors of which the NYT steadfastly refused to correct in the face of criticisms from historians. At a certain point, when the gaffes all line up in one direction, one might reasonably suspect an underlying motive.
What were some of the issues with the 1619 Project?
I find it so funny that Facebook hides behind "freedom of speech" when in fact what they do is the exact opposite. When everything you saw was cronological, you could make that argument. I write a message on my wall and everyone who follows me can see it if they scroll down far enough. Most importantly, the only criteria used was the time it was submitted which I think everyone can agree is fair. By prioritizing cert…
The (legitimate) argument is that freedom of speech extends to facebook getting to decide what, and in what order, information is displayed on facebook.com. To dictate a chronological order, or to demand that they publish every single thing that is submitted to them, is a restriction of their freedom of editorial expression on their own website .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main thesis of the 1619 project was that the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery. This is categorically false according to actual historians, and so the NYT had to issue a correction (some 7 months later). None of the leading scholars of the whole period from the Revolution to the Civil War were consulted on the project, yet now it…
> yet now it is being taught in some public schools That's the real problem. Newspapers get things wrong all the time. There's a conversation, people put forth their views pro and anti, and everyone makes up their own mind. But making a newspaper story that has come under fire from a huge number of respectable scholars part of the school curriculum for children is nakedly ideological.
I find it so funny that Facebook hides behind "freedom of speech" when in fact what they do is the exact opposite. When everything you saw was cronological, you could make that argument. I write a message on my wall and everyone who follows me can see it if they scroll down far enough. Most importantly, the only criteria used was the time it was submitted which I think everyone can agree is fair. By prioritizing cert…
The (legitimate) argument is that freedom of speech extends to facebook getting to decide what, and in what order, information is displayed on facebook.com. To dictate a chronological order, or to demand that they publish every single thing that is submitted to them, is a restriction of their freedom of editorial expression on their own website .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny you should ask - I just saw this: > You don’t realize the heavy conscious and mental burden that comes with being a Facebook employee until you quit https://twitter.com/sebmck/status/1275363680767537154
Probably could replace "Facebook" with just about any company in that sentence. Having to uphold "company values", live by some boss's petty rules, take HR initiatives seriously, etc, is pretty much universally frustrating.
>> https://twitter.com/sebmck/status/1275363680767537154
> Probably could replace "Facebook" with just about any company in that sentence. Having to uphold "company values", live by some boss's petty rules, take HR initiatives seriously, etc, is pretty much universally frustrating.
Eh, I don't think so. This is the second tweet in that thread:
> Imagine not being complicit in social disorder and political interference. It’s pretty nice. Imagine not being ashamed to tell people where you work. Even better.
I work for an (old, non-SV) company with a pretty decent workplace culture, while I don't like some things about it, the company's products and values are OK and eye-rolly "HR initiatives" can be pretty much ignored if you choose. I don't feel any "mental burden" or shame for working here.
While it might affect Facebook’s bottom line for a short while, until users start moving away from FB nothing really will change. Advertisers will come back.
Speculative: Before enough users start moving away maybe Facebook will figure out how to make it a legal requirement for us citizens to have a Facebook. You laugh now ... you can buy me a drink in 10 years or so.
I wonder how much of it is Facebook being unwilling to be editorial and how much of it is then being unable to moderate a couple of billion users. Either way, they might not get a choice. The EU is going to regulate them more and more. My own country is passing a law to force platforms to remove child pornography within 24 hours of it being reported as an example of where it starts. Won’t be long before we make enabl…
No one has a problem with anyone making nazi groups planning hate crimes illegal. My biggest concern is Facebook deciding who is a "nazi" and what constitutes a hate crime. My belief (backed by scientific fact) that biological sex is real and immutable is enough to have me branded as a "nazi". The statement "males are not females" is enough to be considered hate speech. Saying, "males are not females" could be a hate…
"Males are not females" may be accurate when referring to biological sex, but in the context it is most commonly used (as harassment and as a neoconservative tribal signifier) it is referring to gender, and is roughly equivalent to saying "the gender you have now should match the gender you were assigned at birth, or your gender identity is illegitimate".
It's similar to saying "all lives matter". Of course they do, but the context in which its said indicates that it's an opposition to the explicit statement about black lives mattering, a de-focusing and dismissal. "All lives matter" or "males are not females" are not incorrect statements, but in the vast majority of the times they are used on the internet, they are used to express hatred of a group and the active dismissal of that group's efforts to achieve equal human rights. The context in which they are used makes them hateful. Hiding behind the "but it's scientific fact!" is simply a deflection from the fact that it is an expression of hate in the context in which it is used.
I shouldn't have to explain this, honestly. Please stop acting like a jerk to people online.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about gaffes like the 1619 Project, the shortcomings and errors of which the NYT steadfastly refused to correct in the face of criticisms from historians. At a certain point, when the gaffes all line up in one direction, one might reasonably suspect an underlying motive.
What were some of the issues with the 1619 Project?