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

261–270 of 527 posts

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

#261

Post by Thorentis »

jschwartzi wrote: post #253
Thorentis wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fair point, but I think the political aspect is an "emergent property" if you will, rather than an inherent one. If Facebook limits the filtering to engagement, then it isn't the fault of Facebook that political content is engaging. That's just human nature. Disasters, outrage, politics, polarizing topics - these are all popular topics both online and off-line, and apread quickly as town gossip well before…

How could it not be the fault of Facebook when Facebook designed the algorithms that are creating all of the divisiveness on Facebook? If I build a bridge intending it to stay up and it happens to fall down 6 months later, I'm responsible for it. Facebook created an algorithm that divides people politically and that surfaces content that is provably fictional. So they should be held responsible for it regardless of t…

Truth is not the point of social media. Facebook isn't an encyclopaedia. Humans already gravitate towards groups that validate their opinions. It makes sense for Facebook to show people content they want to see. It is incredibly Orwellian to say "Facebook should only show people content which corrects their wrong views". Facebook isn't a social conditioning tool. I find the alternative to "misinformation" much scarier. Misinformation and being mistaken are human flaws we will always have, and therefore any social groups will have them by default. Using technology as a tool to condition people out of their views against their will is scary.

The information is out there. There are reliable news sources. There are reliable databases and encyclopaedias and journalism. If people choose not to read them then that's on them.

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

#262

Post by Consultant32452 »

iateanapple wrote: post #251
brian_cloutier wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Think about how much political influence Twitter has based solely on which tweets they show the President and corporate press. Consider how much untraced in-kind donations these companies can make by tweaking which news stories you see. I hope you take this as kindly as I intend it, but what you're proposing is a conspiracy theory. This is a relatively nice attribute for a theory to have, because it gives you a nic…

> I don't know, I guess it's possible? Maybe you have a better idea for how it could be happening, but it just doesn't seem very likely at all. I’ve seen this kind of thought pattern a few times and frankly the way you are thinking doesn’t match reality. I work on a 1000+ person enterprise software project. Less than 5% of those 1000+ understand our customers requirements and use cases in any real depth. This is desp…

You don't even need to discuss your "evil plans" with anyone. Hell, it doesn't even need to be a plan. You just only hire people who already agree with you. You don't even have to do this consciously, it's the default human behavior.

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

#263

Post by hnreader998 »

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.

Oddly, companies are actively and deliberately discriminating against race and gender in tech companies in the name of diversity and inclusion. It boggles my mind that none of them have been sued yet for these practices.

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

#264

Post by nagaiaida »

travisoneill1 wrote: post #102
jsabo wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on if your existence is political I suppose. Ask some of your LGBT colleagues, especially trans colleagues, if they feel like can just leave politics at the door.

I have worked with many LGBT colleagues who never bring up politics at work. This "existence is political" thing is just a bullshit phrase that the obnoxious people who can't go an hour without bringing that crap up use to justify it.

How confident are you that the root cause of that political silence is a shared belief that politics shouldn't come up in the workplace rather than potential concern about the effects of openly discussing the issues that affect them?

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

#265

Post by hnreader998 »

patorjk wrote: post #5

At 3 paragraphs (131 words), that was a really short article. However, I agree with the subheading: "Mark Zuckerberg says employees shouldn’t have to confront social issues in their day-to-day work unless they want to" That sounds good to me. I've never had to talk about these kind of things at work. Are there work places where this is unavoidable?

It's even worse than unavoidable. My company has removed any kind of anonymous discussion/Q&A, which just fuels a mono culture.

You only get one-sided discussions because going against the grain will be career suicide.

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

#266

Post by iateanapple »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #262
iateanapple wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know, I guess it's possible? Maybe you have a better idea for how it could be happening, but it just doesn't seem very likely at all. I’ve seen this kind of thought pattern a few times and frankly the way you are thinking doesn’t match reality. I work on a 1000+ person enterprise software project. Less than 5% of those 1000+ understand our customers requirements and use cases in any real depth. This is desp…

You don't even need to discuss your "evil plans" with anyone. Hell, it doesn't even need to be a plan. You just only hire people who already agree with you. You don't even have to do this consciously, it's the default human behavior.

> You just only hire people who already agree with you. You don't even have to do this consciously, it's the default human behavior.

Exactly - our product uses angular because two of our core engineers loved angular, helped people who were having trouble with angular, and hired people who also liked angular.

Not because angular was the best tech choice. We didn’t even do a proper evaluation.

And this is for a hundred million+/year project......

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

#267

Post by Reedx »

baby wrote: post #226
throwitawayfb wrote: post #168

I've just been given an offer from Facebook and I have a few days to decide to take the job or not. The ethical implications of what I'm doing are intense. On one hand, a near 400k total comp package is very nice, but on the other hand I don't want to make the world worse off. I think if I could make that kind of money working from home for another company it'd be an easier decision. Unfortunately, I have to play the…

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…

> Once you realize how things work from the inside, you realize that the majority of people do want to make the world a better place

It's hard to square that with the algorithmic feed, likes, etc, which are making the world worse every single day in favor of engagement metrics. We've known for many years how destructive these are.

Facebook and Twitter could literally make the world a better place simply by disabling those kind of features. Just remove them. It doesn't get easier than that to substantially improve the world, yet it's not being done.

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

#268

Post by dahart »

BeetleB wrote: post #235
dahart wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 discussi…

What are the initiatives about then, if not the laws and/or prohibiting discrimination? Do these companies agree with your claim, are you getting that from HR and/or company lawyers, or is this an opinion?

I've never been to a diversity training program that did not talk about the laws, and I've been to many. You are suggesting that companies are wasting their money for no reason, and consciously running training programs that are unnecessary? Why would "most" companies do that?

> Most such companies are actively complying with antidiscrimination laws.

Complying with US discrimination law means that companies are providing "reasonable accomodations" for people in historically discriminated categories, and for anyone who might file a complaint in the future. Educating the employees about acceptable behavior is a pretty obvious way to avoid getting sued.

> It's not a case of "Hey, we suddenly realized we're not complying with laws, so let's launch these initiatives."

The risk of running into both PR & legal trouble over diversity complaints has risen over time, due to increasing levels of education, increasing exposure to cases of discrimination and abuse, and generally increasing awareness of diversity issues.

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

#269

Post by dahart »

hnreader998 wrote: post #263
dahart wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oddly, companies are actively and deliberately discriminating against race and gender in tech companies in the name of diversity and inclusion. It boggles my mind that none of them have been sued yet for these practices.

What are you referring to?

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

#270

Post by throwaway0a5e »

brian_cloutier wrote: post #185
Consultant32452 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a copy/pasta of a previous post of mine, but I feel it's very fitting here. Why would they give up control of the world by doing something silly like that? Think about how much political influence Twitter has based solely on which tweets they show the President and corporate press. Consider how much untraced in-kind donations these companies can make by tweaking which news stories you see. The crazy thing abo…

> Think about how much political influence Twitter has based solely on which tweets they show the President and corporate press. Consider how much untraced in-kind donations these companies can make by tweaking which news stories you see. I hope you take this as kindly as I intend it, but what you're proposing is a conspiracy theory. This is a relatively nice attribute for a theory to have, because it gives you a nic…

You're making the assumption that the people running these companies are trying to take over the world with AI or whatever. They're not. They're just trying to make the most money and do what's best for the company. The AI, the political influence, etc. are all just side effects of that. There's no conspiracy because nobody is conspiring. Everyone is just doing their jobs the best they can.
Post reply on HN