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

FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 527 posts

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

#231

Post by claudeganon »

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.

Last time I checked, Walmart doesn’t sell conspiracy theories, stoke political violence, or demonstrably false, targeted advertising. You can muddy things with as many analogies as you like, but it’s quite obvious that Facebook’s engineering staff is closer to my example than yours.

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

#232

Post by andreilys »

munificent wrote: post #124
jseliger wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting to watch companies rediscover the old rule about leaving politics and religion at the door.

If a business wants its employees to leave politics at the door, the business should too. If Facebook is going to have departments for government affairs, public policy, and lobbying, then it is entirely reasonable for employees to be politically active too. Otherwise, you're basically saying corporations should participate in the political process but individuals should not. And that's exactly how we got the Earth i…

Any sufficiently large company will be involved with politics. That's the nature of being a multi-billion dollar company.

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

#233

Post by baby »

ciarannolan wrote: post #230
baby wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m obviously biased since I work there, but I had the exact same concerns before starting two years ago. In reality things are much more different that what HN makes it sound like. There’s all sorts of people, and not everyone agree, and much like the current climate in the US people are getting more and more polarized. I think it’s pretty awesome that everyone in the company is free to express themselves and debate…

I don't think the question is really about how the internal politics of Facebook work. The question is whether you should devote years of your limited working time and your talent to make the world a worse place to live in (which I think FB almost certainly does).

And I’ll say that you’re entitled to your opinion. If you do think that, then indeed I would not recommend to join. If you are on the verge, like I was, then my advice is to join because you will be surprised to see that it’s not what you thought it was.

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

#234

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

claudeganon wrote: post #231
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Last time I checked, Walmart doesn’t sell conspiracy theories, stoke political violence, or demonstrably false, targeted advertising. You can muddy things with as many analogies as you like, but it’s quite obvious that Facebook’s engineering staff is closer to my example than yours.

Sorry, I don't mean this to be dismissive, but I don't think I can productively engage with the idea that Facebook is more closely analogous to the Nazi Party than to Walmart. I just wouldn't know where to begin.

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

#235

Post by BeetleB »

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

Sorry, but this is misleading. Most such companies are actively complying with antidiscrimination laws. These diversity discussions/initiatives at work are almost always unrelated to those laws. It's not a case of "Hey, we suddenly realized we're not complying with laws, so let's launch these initiatives." Most such discussions don't have any content about the law or legal aspects because they are not about laws prohibiting discrimination.

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

#236

Post by hartator »

not2b wrote: post #208
hartator wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would still have a proper judge made a decision than Facebook. I can easily block people that share BS on Facebook but I don't want Facebook to make that decision for me. That overrides my own choice to follow them in the first place.

Let's be more specific: you're in Myanmar (aka Burma), and there are Facebook groups calling for, and even organizing, massacres of the Rohingya minority. We should wait for a judge to shut that down? When the relevant judge is part of the people organizing the massacres? And no, this isn't hypothetical, this happened, and it happened on Facebook.

Is not about stopping the post of fb anymore but arresting these people. Yes a judge should make that decision.

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

#237

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

eli wrote: post #198
hartator wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would still have a proper judge made a decision than Facebook. I can easily block people that share BS on Facebook but I don't want Facebook to make that decision for me. That overrides my own choice to follow them in the first place.

What is a “proper judge”? You mean you want the courts to moderate your social platform?

> You mean you want the courts to moderate your social platform?

Honestly? Yes. At least that way there's impartiality, accountability, an appeals process, and enforcement.

If Facebook self-moderates you get all of the same downsides of "big government"[1] moderation and none of the benefits listed above.

[1] I assume your argument is predicated in terms of "big government" as though an unregulated and for-profit company having a near-monopoly on key parts of modern society is somehow superior to any kind of state involvement in reigning-in excesses that the free market fails to address.

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

#238

Post by jgacook »

sidlls wrote: post #218
jgacook wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well put! My parents are very much of the "no politics at work" generation and I really question why that cultural strain has carried itself into 2020 since it only serves company board members/executives and categorizes rank and file employees as automaton code monkeys who should "shut up and type". Armchair thought: in this odd period of history where, ostensibly, capitalism "won" as the political system of choice…

Counterargument: a workplace is, at best, a poor environment in which to advocate for one's political causes. Most people engaged in labor for a company do so because they are not financially independent--that is, they have to in order to simply live. The larger the organization the more likely the employee base will span incompatible political views. Also, very vocal proponents (regardless of what political view the…

1. I agree with you in as far as politicking that has nothing to do with your workplace can be a distraction, but as it pertains to Facebook the politicking is not abstract, but relates directly to Facebook's actions. It might be unacceptable for an employee to use company resources to boost a political candidate: this is not the case here. Facebook is curbing internal criticism of company policy.

2. I think it's disingenuous to imply that Facebook workers - and bear in mind we're not talking about the janitorial staff here, but tech workers who command salaries at and above $100K p.a. - must work at Facebook lest they be destitute. The greatest advantage of being a tech worker is the range of high salary positions available to you. That aside, I return to my previous point about this not being an abstract, culture wars style debate, but specific critique of company actions. It's not politics, but internal politics. Every company has internal debates about the strategic and ethical direction of the company - why not this one?

3. I understand that politics can be exhausting, especially in the highly polarized environment we live in, but I don't think that's sufficient reason to forbid internal critique of any company. Moreover I think the stakes are higher than we are comfortable with - Facebook has already ADMITTED that they provoked the Burmese genocide 2 years ago [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...].

To flip the question around: what makes YOU think that YOUR personal right to feeling relaxed at work is more important than an employee's right to ensure that they do not work on a product that can lead to mass murder? Moreover, is it really a political stance to demand that you are not complicit in unethical activity?

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

#239

Post by [deleted] »

christophilus wrote: post #78
gfodor wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is the reason things have changed so much: Step 1: first, identify truly evil people (like self-avowed white supremacists) Step 2: find a unfalsifable or weak method to associate non-evil people with the evil ones. Step 3: once this method becomes part of the zeitguist, infer the association implies agreement. Step 4: once agreement is assumed when stating the association, imply the person's agreement is in…

Yup. This is worthy of a top comment. That’s exactly how it works. Things will never get better if everyone keeps ostracizing people they disagree with. My family is Republican, Libertarian, and Democrat. No greens yet, but it wouldn’t surprise me. We have great conversations and no one thinks anyone is Hitler or Pol Pot. I really hope the current zeitgeist dies a quick death.

[deleted]

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

#240

Post by munificent »

reader_mode wrote: post #179
munificent wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a business wants its employees to leave politics at the door, the business should too. If Facebook is going to have departments for government affairs, public policy, and lobbying, then it is entirely reasonable for employees to be politically active too. Otherwise, you're basically saying corporations should participate in the political process but individuals should not. And that's exactly how we got the Earth i…

That's a straw man argument, just because an employee isn't allowed to bring politics to work doesn't mean they can't be politically active on their own time.

So individuals can do recreational politics but corporations are free to sink as much of their resources into it as they want?

Is your claim that we really need more corporate control over politics in the US and less citizen participation?

Post reply on HN