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

161–170 of 297 posts

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

#161

Post by Tomte »

Syonyk wrote: post #75
thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 To be frank, this is Twitter in a nutshell to an outsider like me: a major personal time-waster that typically ends in anger and depression. I guess it's not surprising that internal conversations for the platform that owns…

> 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…

> Yes. Just not at scale, and not in a way that prioritizes ad revenue via "engagement" at all cost.

Only if there is some prior trust, if only by virtue of getting along for some time.

If you generally like the other person, and they come up with some incredibly stupid take you're more inclined to listen and ask for clarification than if the other person is unknown to you and says something that seems mildly wrong.

Political discussion is possible if there is a pre-existing and lasting relationship.

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

#162

Post by lamontcg »

david38 wrote: post #107
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 e…

> It’s also a core component of the pro-choice movement (that it doesn’t start that early, thus not killing babies, etc).

That banning abortion leads to the deaths of thousands of young women.

Pretty sure we all agree that a girl's life starts before she can get pregnant.

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

#163

Post by unityByFreedom »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #127
unityByFreedom wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No this is the most neutral position they could possibly take. I'm not sure where you're getting your logic from. I go to work to work, not argue politics. I suspect you and I are on the same side of this argument given this is a tech forum, but I don't to hear it at work. I want to hear it at a protest, over a beer, etc. I go to work to program no to project my politics, and I expect others to do the same. I don't w…

Neutral would be doing nothing and letting people work out their frustrations without an intermediary deciding for them. But that's not Facebook's culture, internal or external.

In a different world, managers could still have discussions with employees about hitting their work targets without needing to tell them what to talk about with other employees.

You don't need to participate in these discussions or read them. I'd say it's fine to relegate such discussion to certain channels within the company. But banning it altogether is taking a position.

Not to mention the fact that Facebook influences politics every day. Blocking employees from having a discussion about that, which is very work-related, is authoritarian.

Zuck is still running the Thiel playbook here.

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

#164

Post by throwaway744678 »

david38 wrote: post #107
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 e…

> Everyone believes that the start of human life is a core issue.

Yes, the core issue is here. Though no-one seriously argues that a foetus is not human, nor alive: the issue is "is it a person (yet)?". Is it something, or someone? Answering that question - not an easy one - makes one swing one way or another of the issue.

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

#165

Post by [deleted] »

Flankk wrote: post #142
killdozer wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Emotions are feelings. You don't have control of them but you do have control over your actions and your speech. If we agree that policies should be rational, then we agree that emotions are non-productive here. The human rights you are talking about are not fundamental in any way, they are contrived. If the state does not protect human life, then nobody will. The issue is not as simple as you've made it out to be.

[deleted]

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

#166

Post by loldk »

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#167

Post by loldk »

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.

The people you speak of cannot learn and grow out of their false paradigms unless they are given the chance to fail.

Silencing them is a recipe for a chain reaction / cascade of failures. It is not a winning strategy.

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

#168

Post by Flankk »

HWR_14 wrote: post #124
Flankk wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The tip of the morality pyramid is God for most people I don't believe this is true in western societies anymore. Even in the US, people who describe themselves as "very religious" or belong to a church are the minority.

I looked it up and it's in decline but still three-quarters of America. Half of Americans said their religion is very important in their own life.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/358364/religious-americans.aspx

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

#169

Post by fatherzine »

drewcoo wrote: post #89
Hydraulix989 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're at work doing a job, you aren't getting paid to converse about non work matters. If working at say Coinbase or any other apolitical tech company isn't your cup of tea, then there are plenty of politically charged places you can work instead that also need software engineers such as the CTO office of the President, Defense tech, think tanks, Congressional offices, Twitter, Planned Parenthood, PETA, and any othe…

If I'm at work doing a job, then I'm paid to get the job done. And how I manage my time and what I'm allowed to think or discuss are my concern. There is no such monster as "politically neutral." That is synonymous with "supporting the status quo," which is a political stance. It's the trolley problem - not deciding is still opting into a bad option.

It's not the trolley problem. There are plenty of avenues for political activism /outside/ the workplace. Adults should be capable of not conflating the workplace with their entire existence. The only acceptable activism is unionization, understood as narrowly focused on workplace issues.

For a sample size of one, while I am very guilty of having many politically charged conversations with coworkers, I have always kept them physically /outside/ the workplace. At work we confine conversations strictly about business and customers.

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

#170

Post by fatherzine »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #36
s1k3 wrote: post #8

As it should be. Politics at work makes for untenable working conditions. Large enough companies will tend to have people deeply on both sides of the political spectrum. Encouraging or even allowing discussion on hot political issues is a recipe for disaster. It can ruin what we’re otherwise perfectly good working relationships.

Maybe this was true when it was Carter vs. Reagan or what(when)ever, but we live in very different times now where it has become impossible to ignore what is happening around us politically.

Carter vs. Reagan, 1980. USA: 23,368 nuclear warheads. USSR: 30,062 nuclear warheads. We are talking about peak Cold War, which will see some detente only after 1985 and Gorbachev reforms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_sto...

Post reply on HN