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

371–380 of 527 posts

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

#371

Post by skinkestek »

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 actually in a different position:

I used to loathe Facebook and like Google. These days both seems about the same. Facebooks policy to leave people alone deeply resonates with me even though I still dislike them intensely for what they did to WhatsApp.

And for what it is worth, Facebook unlike Google hasn't insulted me for a decade with the ads they show.

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

#372

Post by triceratops »

t-writescode wrote: post #101
xamuel wrote: 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…

> 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…

I see this a misconception a lot online so I have to point out something important. The "publisher" vs "platform" is only about liability.

Publishers are liable for everything posted on their websites. Platforms are not - as long as they make good faith efforts to take down or prevent posting of illegal content.

Both are allowed to engage in moderation, curation or "censorship". Engaging in such does not make a website a publisher.

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

#373

Post by drevil-v2 »

xnyan wrote: post #331
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?

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…

That is such a Motte & Bailey fallacy you are spouting. We all know this situation exists because a handful of Facebook employees are adamant (almost psychotically imo) to shove their woke ideology down every one else's throats.

Try saying a trans "woman" is biologically male on Twitter and you will be banned. These FB employees want the same deal on their employers platform. And that is just for starters.

I say good for the Zuck. At least he has got the balls to stand up to these children.

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

#374

Post by ryguytilidie »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #373
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…

That is such a Motte & Bailey fallacy you are spouting. We all know this situation exists because a handful of Facebook employees are adamant (almost psychotically imo) to shove their woke ideology down every one else's throats. Try saying a trans "woman" is biologically male on Twitter and you will be banned. These FB employees want the same deal on their employers platform. And that is just for starters. I say good…

This is the most I've cringed at an HN post in years, and that is saying a LOT.

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

#375

Post by triceratops »

stale2002 wrote: post #225
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. 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, whatever they ended up saying. Not really, no. That is not usually what people mean, when they say "take a political stance". We can extend this to othe…

> Do you think that a grocery store should ban people from their stores, if the individual is wearing a pro Trump, or pro Biden Tshirt?

A lot of bars and clubs have dress codes. Many ban wearing clothes that could be perceived as "gang" colors. It would be a terrible business decision for a grocery store to do this, but I don't think it's wrong.

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

#376

Post by triceratops »

Talanes wrote: post #110
xamuel wrote: 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…

I cannot say something into one end of the telephone, and depending on the content of my message, not have it delivered on the other end. That's the difference.

If the phone company finds out you're running an illegal/scammy robocalling operation from their phone line, they absolutely will cut you off.

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

#377

Post by B-Con »

xapata wrote: post #361
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…

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

"pasta" is a meme replacement of "paste" is there copy/paste context. It's relatively popular, albeit uncommon on HN.

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

#378

Post by StanislavPetrov »

ryguytilidie wrote: post #374
drevil-v2 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is such a Motte & Bailey fallacy you are spouting. We all know this situation exists because a handful of Facebook employees are adamant (almost psychotically imo) to shove their woke ideology down every one else's throats. Try saying a trans "woman" is biologically male on Twitter and you will be banned. These FB employees want the same deal on their employers platform. And that is just for starters. I say good…

This is the most I've cringed at an HN post in years, and that is saying a LOT.

It was poorly phrased but its more and more clear how eager some people are to force their ideology down the throats of others. Its perfectly reasonable for Facebook to tell their employees to keep their political and ideological crusades (whatever they may be) out of the workplace.

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

#379

Post by jonathankoren »

throwaway1777 wrote: post #369
wmichelin wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But they are. Everyone at the company is complicit.

Lets say you're a delivery driver for a pizza parlor that is famous for the level of rat poison in its sauce. Do you continue to knowingly deliver the poison pizzas because you're not the one making the sauce? Afterall, who's going to deliver the poisonous pizzas?

Come on. This is right up there with, "I was just following orders."

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

#380

Post by StanislavPetrov »

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…

That's not how it works. The business is employing you, not the other way around. They are the ones who set the standards for behavior in the workplace, not you, the employee. If you don't like it, you are free to move on.
Post reply on HN