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

#131

Post by nraynaud » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:01 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…

facebook decides how many feeds each post appear on. it's a not a broadcast system, they dampen the spread with an active decision.

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

#132

Post by stateofnounion » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #39

daok wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. There are places where employees MUST go in these meetings that talk about social differences, inclusions, diversity, etc.

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?

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

#133

Post by novok » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

t-writescode wrote: post #101

xamuel wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> Phone companies and ISPs facilitate communication between people, but that doesn't necessitate they take political stances on what communication to allow Taking a stance to not control what communication is allowed is a very political stance. It just so happens that, I believe in those cases, it's also a legally mandated stance; but, if it weren't a legally mandated stance, it would absolutely be a political stance…

In these debates, people seem to pretend that if facebook or others don't stay politically neutral as possible premptively, that pissed off politicians will not do it for them, badly, in hundreds of countries. It's why social media companies have the kid gloves with politically powerful people.

A segment of social media company staff also don't like that reality and want their social to censor the political parties / discussions they don't like and thus they toe the line and give unsatisfying non-answers at all hands and to the media.

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

#134

Post by ponker » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:06 PM UTC

t-writescode wrote: post #101

xamuel wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> Phone companies and ISPs facilitate communication between people, but that doesn't necessitate they take political stances on what communication to allow Taking a stance to not control what communication is allowed is a very political stance. It just so happens that, I believe in those cases, it's also a legally mandated stance; but, if it weren't a legally mandated stance, it would absolutely be a political stance…

This is why the cloud flare CEO has lobbied for regulation that takes these decisions off his hands.

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

#135

Post by pesenti » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:06 PM UTC

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 employee here. You can definitely continue talking about any company business or decisions, even if they have political relevance, as you did before. This change only applies to discussions completely unrelated to work.

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

#136

Post by leetcrew » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

zapita wrote: post #122

dntrkv wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook doesn't profit from divisiveness, they profit from engagement. The fact that divisive posts encourage more engagement tells me more about people in general, rather than Facebook's business model. > Limit the spread of information in general in favor of content created by the people you follow I don't think that's what people want from their social networks nowadays. FB, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, et…

> Facebook doesn't profit from divisiveness, they profit from engagement. The fact that divisive posts encourage more engagement tells me more about people in general, rather than Facebook's business model. "Crack dealers don't profit from drug addiction, they profit from the pleasurable effects of consuming crack. The fact that very addictive drugs are pleasurable to consume tells me more about people in general, ra…

there are a lot of pro-legalization folks on this forum that would likely be inclined to agree.

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

#137

Post by jgacook » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #121

claudeganon wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t want to go all Godwin’s law, but the “I was just scaling capacity for processing census punch cards” argument doesn’t pan out very well, historically.

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 "just" working on scaling Facebook's image service. They have the institutional power at the company that they could leverage to change the product's outcomes, if they so desired.

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

#138

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:14 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…

[deleted]

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

#139

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:14 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…

[deleted]

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

#140

Post by dntrkv » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

zapita wrote: post #122

dntrkv wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook doesn't profit from divisiveness, they profit from engagement. The fact that divisive posts encourage more engagement tells me more about people in general, rather than Facebook's business model. > Limit the spread of information in general in favor of content created by the people you follow I don't think that's what people want from their social networks nowadays. FB, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, et…

> Facebook doesn't profit from divisiveness, they profit from engagement. The fact that divisive posts encourage more engagement tells me more about people in general, rather than Facebook's business model. "Crack dealers don't profit from drug addiction, they profit from the pleasurable effects of consuming crack. The fact that very addictive drugs are pleasurable to consume tells me more about people in general, ra…

Yes, and I don't see crack dealers as the problem in your example. The bigger problem is how society views drugs, addiction, and the criminalization of both. We've all seen how well that's worked for us. Thinking we could apply similar bans on speech we don't agree with is just as stupid.