Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
381–390 of 527 posts
Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
#382> Ctrl+F -> "quit.", "quit "
I see so much debate about what's right to do within FB, "how will people change the structure from the inside with this rule?", etc.
QUIT. Just quit. Seriously. Make it public why you quit. Quit en masse. FB is not a good company. Your talents are useful in many other places.
Yes, I'm privileged in saying this. No, I wouldn't feel comfortable quitting my job right now.
But if you believe enough that FB is an evil company--as many of us have known for 10+ years now--you should not work there.
If they are doing bad things, and they are not open to people fixing said bad things, stop helping them do bad things.
Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Facebook doesn't profit from divisiveness, they profit from engagement. The fact that divisive posts encourage more engagement tells me more about people in general, rather than Facebook's business model. "Crack dealers don't profit from drug addiction, they profit from the pleasurable effects of consuming crack. The fact that very addictive drugs are pleasurable to consume tells me more about people in general, ra…
Yes, and I don't see crack dealers as the problem in your example. The bigger problem is how society views drugs, addiction, and the criminalization of both. We've all seen how well that's worked for us. Thinking we could apply similar bans on speech we don't agree with is just as stupid.
Both things can be true. Some dangerous drugs are excessively criminalized and that causes enormous problems. Others are legal but heavily regulated, like alcohol and tobacco. Some are legal and insufficiently regulated, which causes enormous problems too: see for example the ongoing opioid crisis in the US.
Nothing good comes from denying the dangers of an addictive drug, or leaving its distributors free to misbehave without consequence. That is the current situation with social media companies and their enormous influence on our minds.
I don’t think we should ban social media. But not holding multi-billion dollar social media conglomerates accountable at all is lunacy.
Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
Censoring is when an authority removes content without your consent. Installing something that lets you decide what content to see (or not see) on a site is not censorship.
It is, however, sealing one's self in a chamber of like-minded opinion.
That implies Facebook posts are an accurate assessment of opinion, and not whatever the algorithms promoted to increase engagement.
Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
#385Earlier 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…
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.
> 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.
It indeed would look bad if I said any such thing. Fortunately, I did not.
Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
#386There will be always people that do not care and just want to get paid. FB won't have many problems finding people to do the job without moral objections.
Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Facebook doesn't profit from divisiveness, they profit from engagement. The fact that divisive posts encourage more engagement tells me more about people in general, rather than Facebook's business model. "Crack dealers don't profit from drug addiction, they profit from the pleasurable effects of consuming crack. The fact that very addictive drugs are pleasurable to consume tells me more about people in general, ra…
there are a lot of pro-legalization folks on this forum that would likely be inclined to agree.
I’m fine with legalizing crack as long as producers and distributors are heavily regulated and held accountable for their impact on public health, just like the alcohol and tobacco industry.
Social media conglomerates manipulate how billions of people perceive the world around them, with disastrous effects. They should be held accountable for that.
Absolving them of all guilt, and blaming all the nefarious effects of social media on the consumers, accomplishes nothing.
Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
#388At 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.
Such as ... food production? "But your food is consumed by literal fascists"... water supply? "Did you know that evil people also drink the water you are providing and hydrate their bodies so they can do more evil things?"
For people who believe that everything is political, there are no projects with less moral ambiguity, it's just more or less openly visible.
Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that's all I'm asking for here. A practical proposal. Removing tetraethyl lead was certainly doable. Removing every car from the road was not. One was a targeted change that improved the industry, while the latter was so impractical that they never considered it. Here's a thought - you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. How did you come to that conclusion? Did you spare a thought…
I don’t think you have to shut down Facebook. Just shut down targeted advertising, algorithmic filtering of content, and a lot of their surveillance practices (e.g. shadow profiles).
Should Google's targeted advertising also be prohibited?
Should Google's algorithmic filtering of content also be prohibited?
Should Doubleclick/Google's surveillance practices (which almost certainly include some kind of "shadow" profile) be prohibited?
Also, people have been talking about shadow profiles for at least a decade now, and yet no disgruntled FB employee has revealed all. Why do you think that is?
Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
#390Earlier 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?
Heavily outwieghed by the downsides.
Facebook has done a lot of good, but IMO there is no question that it's done more harm.
And Zuckerberg is a crazy person. There are a lot of people I wouldn't want to ultimately report to, but Zuck is right next to Larry at this point.