Live data from Hacker News

FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

wsj.com

321–330 of 527 posts

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

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook by its nature takes stances on deeply political topics I use Facebook to say in touch with old friends. If they want to share last Tucker's video, not sure why FB should block them if I don't block them.

I don't think it's a realistic concern that FB would block content from mass-market media for political reasons. They might block it for copyright, but there's no benefit in deplatforming material that's already been seen by tens of millions of cable viewers. My problem with Facebook is that it acts as radicalization pipeline by channeling lies that are too crazy for mass market media into the minds of people who are…

> Facebook was used to spread propaganda to Republican rural residents in Oregon by telling them that Democrats were coming to light wildfires in their towns.

Well isn’t Oregon on fire right now while being under the watch of a Democrat governor? It seems you are worried about digital wildfire when actual wildfires are there and do kill.

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

#322
post #93

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…

By choosing to have a system by which algorithms would recommend social content, they’ve committed to a course that is going to eventually collide with politics. The only way to avoid it is to get out of the recommendation game, which would be tantamount to corporate suicide at this point.

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

#323
post #254
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…

> Nothing about Facebook's nature forces them to go beyond that and act as de facto language legislators The ethics of being a/the major institution of mass communication in large parts of the world may not force FB to act as language legislators, but these ethics certainly should compel them to do so. Relevant points: - If FB’s status as a mass comms source is threatened, then the company itself is threatened. This…

Relying on governments to regulate mass communications is strictly better for Facebook than the alternative, where governments disagree with Facebook's chosen policies and punish them instead. This is why most companies prefer to comply with local law, only enforcing universal policy where it doesn't potentially conflict with local law.

Companies don't just have no reason to regulate language, they also have no serious authority to do so. The onus has always been and can only be on government legislators to address these issues in the most fundamental sense.

I'd like to see Facebook try to take on the Democrat/Republican eternal conflict in the US or the CCP in China on adopting a universal policy that they don't agree with, armed with powerful arguments like "the power of ethics compels me!" or "it's a Pandora's box because we're international!" or "stockholders care about our status!". Going above and beyond their most basic policy obligations has been a great way to attract the ire of political authorities who are now agitated over whether Facebook's policy is intentionally empowering or weakening their political enemies.

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

#324
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?

Work on projects that have less moral ambiguity.

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

#326
post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> these initiatives are not about what the law requires. Except they are. Your word list is an exceedingly literal straw-man interpretation of a law that is purposefully vague, and doesn’t prescribe which words you can use. You can’t assume that specific policies of a company aren’t there for legal reasons just because the law doesn’t state the exact same policy in the exact same words. The spirit and the letter of t…

Your whole argument is predicated on "The law is vague. Society has decided such phrases make people unwelcome, and thus companies can be penalized for it." Unfortunately, the only way to know is to test it in the courts. We differ as to where society currently stands on such matters, and it is certainly not clear that were this to go to court, rulings will be made to penalize companies utilizing the lexicon in the m…

> Your whole argument is predicated on "The law is vague. Society has decided such phrases make people unwelcome, and thus companies can be penalized for it."

No, my argument is predicated on my experience and discussions with company HR and lawyers at multiple companies. It sounds like your experience differs, and that's fine. My explanation for why the words you chose aren't specifically listed in the law is because the law is intentionally vague, and not prescriptive about which words you can use. The law is stating a goal, and companies are interpreting how to achieve that goal, because they have no other choice.

> Your argument is "law is intentionally vague, and society believes X". I agree on the former, and not the latter.

I feel like this is getting unnecessarily argumentative, and I'm guilty of escalating it. But I did not say, and didn't intend to mean that all of society agrees. However, it's sort of a fact and not a debatable point whether certain groups of people and businesses have decided that some words are sensitive. That's exactly why it's showing up in diversity programs.

> I didn't say all such things are a waste and are "for no reason".

Okay, I apologize for mis-interpreting. You have said multiple times that it is "not about the law" and you haven't offered an alternative explanation. If the reason has nothing to do with the law, then what is it, and why are companies saying it has to do with the law? What is the goal behind the proactive initiatives?

> You've also not addressed the other examples in my comment. My company, which is compliant with the law on hiring based discrimination, is not going to get sued if they decide not to hold special recruiting events for people of certain protected classes.

I tried to address this. Attitudes are changing over time. Being compliant yesterday doesn't necessarily mean you're compliant today, even if the law doesn't change wording. Growing awareness means that what's "reasonable" is a moving target. Also, we were talking about diversity training, and not affirmative action nor only hiring discrimination laws. Your company might get sued in the future if it doesn't take reasonable actions along the way to prevent people from feeling marginalized or ostracized, even though it believes it's in line with the law today. That has already happened at other companies, and one reason companies are trying to be proactive.

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

#327
The cognitive dissonance is nauseating -- on one side, a flaming sphincter of discord, pandering to the lowest common denominator. But they want the other side, the side that picks the diet and tunes the dilation to be disengaged, apolitical and obedient? I really am not sure you can have both, Zucky.

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

#328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[EDIT: actually what’s probably quite relevant is all the stories about high schools sending young women home because they don’t approve of their outfits even if said outfit doesn’t violate a dress code.] Imagine someone walks into a grocery store naked. Or wearing a t-shirt with a explicit image of a man and a woman having sex. Or two men having sex. Or a t-shirt which says / shows something extremely inflammatory y…

> Or wearing a t-shirt Or wearing a "vote for Trump/Biden" t shirt. In that situation basically everyone would agree that it would be ridiculous to say that the grocery store should ban people for wearing that t-shirt. I think that most people would not call refusing to ban someone for wearing this t-shirt as a "political" decision. Most people would agree that it is not political to refuse to ban someone for wearing…

It's hard to parse all the double negatives.

But, in general, businesses businesses should generally have a fairly wide latitude as to what the t-shirt slogans they allow customers to wear. (Though I think we can imagine various slogans a business might deem objectionable.)

At the same time, businesses can reasonably have a fairly narrow latitude as to what employees should wear, even barring an official dress code, with respect to even advocating for a specific candidate--and that may even get into matters of company campaigning.

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

#329
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I should have been more clear. Like someone else mentioned, these diversity (and inclusion) discussions are not related to discrimination laws and equal opportunity. They are always related to increasing diversity in the company by hiring more underrepresented people (previously this just meant women in eng but now it's been expanded to POC). In order to achieve this, companies are actively discriminating against non-minorities, which some may call positive discrimination. Regardless, it's discrimination nonetheless and it's very common yet somehow nobody cares.

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

#330

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 work at FB. I wouldn’t want to be working alongside people who think I’m a mercenary abdicating my moral precepts. And I wouldn’t expect that of my colleagues. So my guess is that you could get away with it easily, but you‘d be doing a disservice to yourself and your team.

> abdicating my moral precepts

Sounds like there's nothing left to abdicate.

Post reply on HN