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

271–280 of 527 posts

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

#271

Post by refurb »

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…

Otherwise, you're basically saying corporations should participate in the political process but individuals should not.

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

That's like saying "if employees don't have total freedom of speech at work that means only corporations have freedom of speech".

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

#272

Post by ikiris »

benjohnson wrote: post #24
hirundo wrote: post #12

If we were to discuss politics at work at any length we would be at immediate risk of losing valuable people. We all pretty much know where we stand on politics, and it is not together. And many of us feel very strongly about our irreconcilable positions. But by carefully not talking about them (or engaging when someone less in tune starts) we get along just fine. That's not official policy but it is a good one.

Our small company has a "No drama" policy. We have an astounding diverse team and we've learned to appreciate each other.

For a lot of people, appreciating all people and letting them live their lives is "politics"

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

#273

Post by ciarannolan »

baby wrote: post #260
ciarannolan wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may not be what you think it was internally, but it's negative externalities are there for the world to see.

What about the upsides?

Also there for the world to see. I just think on balance Facebook is a force for social destruction and individual harm on a scale never even imagined.

I looked at your blog; you seem like a talented, driven person. Why not apply those gifts to something meaningful? Why spend your limited working years building tools for this horrible company?

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

#274

Post by cma »

Udik wrote: post #216
not2b wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse: Facebook decides that the "most relevant" comments on such posts are the most inflammatory comments, because their algorithms select for engagement, so they want to show me something that will anger you, so you write an inflammatory reply.

But do they decide? Can they actually read the comment and decide it's inflammatory? Or do they just expose comments that people like to engage with (filtering out only the most obvious insults)?

To not expose highly the one they predict to meet their metrics from the get-go would be a big loss to give up, given the small scale of many threads.

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

#275

Post by BTCOG »

jballer wrote: post #247
BTCOG wrote: post #221

All this rioting and yet nobody burned down the Facebook offices. A shame, could have brought about the radical change they expected.

By “they” do you mean Facebook? Or the rioters? …or were you intentionally toeing the line between sarcasm and anarchy?

I specifically meant the ones burning buildings hoping it would bring about change. Burned the wrong buildings.

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

#276

Post by shard972 »

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…

> Side note: One of Facebook's board members apparently enjoys the company of white supremacists. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24444704 Will Facebook employees be allowed to talk about that? If you work at Facebook, how do you feel about that?

Are we just going to allow people to throw around such loaded statements based on flimsy correlations and association?

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

#277

Post by throwaway0a5e »

Ancapistani wrote: post #219
beefalo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

political views !== who you think deserves human rights

Right, which is why ID requirements for purchasing firearms are immoral.

Well it's a right same as voting and I'm against double standards so either one needs to get rid of ID requirements or one needs to get them.

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

#278

Post by baby »

ciarannolan wrote: post #273
baby wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the upsides?

Also there for the world to see. I just think on balance Facebook is a force for social destruction and individual harm on a scale never even imagined. I looked at your blog; you seem like a talented, driven person. Why not apply those gifts to something meaningful? Why spend your limited working years building tools for this horrible company?

Well from my comments it should be obvious that we don’t agree :)

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

#279

Post by CocaKoala »

mehrdadn wrote: post #176
t-writescode wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Taking a stance to not control what communication is allowed is a very political stance. Then in your model of the world, how would one not take a political stance? If everyone takes a political stance in your model by definition no matter what their intents or actions are then it's a rather useless definition.

> how would one _not_ take a political stance?

A non-political stance would be one which has zero side effects on anybody other than yourself. As soon as the actions you make and the decisions you take have an effect on somebody who isn't you, it becomes political.

Actually _taking_ a non-political stance is an exercise left to the reader.

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

#280

Post by ketzo »

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.

Correction: they never brought up politics to you. You don't know that they weren't political in their discussions with other colleagues. Perhaps it is worth considering why that might be the case.

People whose existences are deeply politicized (and they do indeed exist) are not often excited to have political conversations with people who say things like "'existence is political' thing is just a bullshit phrase."

I'm not trying to be a dick, but it took me a long time to realize that there were conversations I was not being made a part of because I was not receptive to, or dismissive of, those conversations.

Post reply on HN