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

361–370 of 527 posts

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

#361

Post by xapata »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #70
satya71 wrote: post #8

How about bringing the same rules to the wider FB? I just want to look at baby pictures and connect with friends. I don't want to be part of a machinery that spreads misinformation and conspiracy theories.

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…

I believe the word is "paste" and you can link instead.

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

#362

Post by an_opabinia »

searchableguy wrote: post #358
xnyan wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What this means in intent and practice is that you are not allowed to discuss social issues that the hierarchy and those that align with the hierarchy find objectionable. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that if a facebook employee wants to talk about poverty in underdeveloped countries on internal social media, then that's going to be ok, but if the discussion concerns people who were harmed because they fo…

I wonder if free-speech or political protection in workplace can be abused by competitors to destroy your culture as proposed by people in the comments. Is there a chance of that happening or does it already happen?

> Is there a chance of that happening or does it already happen?

Nah.

Every Facebook employee I've met, every one that I'm reading, they are sincere about what they're angry about.

It's a bad look, to assume some Facebook employee's opinions are being co-opted by... fucking Google? Apple? That's ridiculous.

I'm not even going to speculate why anyone questions some random Facebook employee's sincerity.

Instead I offer: Imagine if someone told you, every opinion you had, all the time, talked over you or told you to shut the fuck up and said, "Oh you're getting co-opted by Google, this is exactly what they want you to do, 'destroy our culture.'" And then, in the same breath, that guy defends, breathlessly, some idiot outraged over the removal of master/slave nomenclature, or some idiot trying to mainsplain crackpot sex difference theories to his female coworkers.

C'mon, you'd be mad as hell, it's so utterly ridiculous.

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

#363

Post by fareesh »

If the climate is such that the employees are so passionate about politics, is it at all possible that zero employees have their thumb on the scale in terms of using their position to nudge towards their desired election result?

That seems like a bigger issue. If I am an activist and I poison the enormous dataset that's being fed to a ML model, is anyone even going to notice?

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

#364

Post by unabst »

Zuckerburg touts free speech over Russia interfering with our elections or correcting the president or controlling the viral spread of disinformation, yet moves to control speech within the company due to inconveniences.

“If you don't stick to your values when they're being tested, they're not values: they're hobbies.”

― Jon Stewart

(Many said something similar, but I just love Jon Stewart)

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

#365

Post by sidlls »

dahart wrote: post #298
BeetleB wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am speaking specifically to diversity initiatives visible to all employees, as opposed to those that are specific to managers or HR. The law doesn't require us to banish the phrase "master/slave" from our lexicon, yet it is part of our diversity initiative. The law doesn't require us to banish the words "whitelist/blacklist" from our lexicon, yet it is part of our diversity initiative. The law requires we do not di…

> 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…

> Except they are.

They aren't. In fact, the discussions I've seen at companies in the bay area go far beyond the minimum requirements of the law. They aren't about preventing discrimination, they're about actively increasing diversity (in some areas, but not all).

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

#366

Post by namuol »

newcomputer wrote: post #355
munificent wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Individuals are also free to sink as much of their resources into it as they want. The fact of the matter is political conversations have high risk of annoying/frustrating/alienating their participants. To have these conversations at work is just making employees less productive and asking for a controversy.

> To have these conversations at work is just making employees less productive and asking for a controversy.

I dare say it might be time for some employees at Facebook to pause and think about how their work may have an impact on the world.

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

#367

Post by chmaynard »

emtel wrote: post #350
chmaynard wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consult a lawyer for advice on the legal implications of being directed to work on projects that either violate the law or your own ethical principles. The lawyer can help you draft an employment contract that protects you from retaliation if you object. If Facebook refuses to sign the contract, walk away.

Someone should make a museum of bizarre advice found on HN. No normal company is going to sign _any_ contract provided by a prospective full-time employee (except perhaps if you are a sought after celebrity being hired at a VP level or above), so it would just be a waste of time and money for someone to take your advice. Even if the hiring manager personally wanted to, there is no process for doing this. They don't h…

> No normal company is going to sign _any_ contract provided by a prospective full-time employee

Agreed. To take my advice, you would need to be hired as a contractor/consultant. Normal companies do this all the time.

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

#368

Post by an_opabinia »

BeetleB wrote: post #295
dahart wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pro…

I am speaking specifically to diversity initiatives visible to all employees, as opposed to those that are specific to managers or HR. The law doesn't require us to banish the phrase "master/slave" from our lexicon, yet it is part of our diversity initiative. The law doesn't require us to banish the words "whitelist/blacklist" from our lexicon, yet it is part of our diversity initiative. The law requires we do not di…

It's a really bad look to say that these debates about nomenclature are not worthy of your time, and then go write 11 righteous paragraphs about it.

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

#369

Post by throwaway1777 »

wmichelin wrote: post #127
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?

Facebook is not your average workplace. If your platform is profiting off of active political misinformation, you have an obligation to not only discuss these issues, but solve them. If you determine that you can't solve them, it's time to stop accepting the money.

Most employees at Facebook are doing nothing of the sort. They are working on databases and internal tools and changing the color of buttons. If you work on an integrity team then yes, you'll have to discuss such issues, but most employees don't.

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

#370

Post by tolbish »

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.

Does your company do anything remotely controversial such as moderating how people are informed, or providing tech for military organizations?
Post reply on HN