391–400 of 527 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone has to discuss diversity at work because there are laws prohibiting discrimination, that's a good thing. Not everyone has to discuss politics at work.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this is the reason things have changed so much: Step 1: first, identify truly evil people (like self-avowed white supremacists) Step 2: find a unfalsifable or weak method to associate non-evil people with the evil ones. Step 3: once this method becomes part of the zeitguist, infer the association implies agreement. Step 4: once agreement is assumed when stating the association, imply the person's agreement is in…
People fall for it. It's horrid, but smart from a tactical perspective. I wonder if there are resources on creating divisions. It's a very interesting social science topic.
Humans are (somewhat) pre-disposed to form in-groups and out-groups, and clearly those people are worse than us.
The only real difference between pre-internet and post-internet is that it's much, much easier for fringe ideas to spread (and often this is good, like gay rights were a fringe idea twenty years ago).
However, we don't get only the good (for whatever your definition of good is) stuff, we also get people who particular in-groups don't like organising, and this sucks. But everyone's out-group is someone else's in-group, so unless you can solve humanity, you're not going to fix Facebook.
To be fair though, I trace the divisions in American society mostly from the decline of the Fairness Doctrine, and all the downstream consequences of that (specific channels for particular worldviews leading to increased radicalisation).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
political views !== who you think deserves human rights
And this is the reason things have changed so much: Step 1: first, identify truly evil people (like self-avowed white supremacists) Step 2: find a unfalsifable or weak method to associate non-evil people with the evil ones. Step 3: once this method becomes part of the zeitguist, infer the association implies agreement. Step 4: once agreement is assumed when stating the association, imply the person's agreement is in…
[1] - https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/editorials/wendy-m...
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Since GitHub repositories renaming their master branch did cost us significant money and almost caused downtime, I would be fully understanding if someone else is feeling outraged about it.
I belive you need to work on your example of a bad person ;)
How about we go with? And then in the same breath that gal defends selling people's secrets for pennies on the dollar and willingly accepting that they'll likely have very real negative consequences for your users once the private data in your database invariably gets leaked onto the internet.
Oh wait, that wouldn't leave much left at Facebook, wouldn't it?
So let's just question the moral integrity of anyone working at Facebook. Seems reasonable, given what egregious privacy infringements their work enables.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m obviously biased since I work there, but I had the exact same concerns before starting two years ago. In reality things are much more different that what HN makes it sound like. There’s all sorts of people, and not everyone agree, and much like the current climate in the US people are getting more and more polarized. I think it’s pretty awesome that everyone in the company is free to express themselves and debate…
> Once you realize how things work from the inside, you realize that the majority of people do want to make the world a better place It's hard to square that with the algorithmic feed, likes, etc, which are making the world worse every single day in favor of engagement metrics. We've known for many years how destructive these are. Facebook and Twitter could literally make the world a better place simply by disabling…
I'm not sure about that. I agree that the world might be better, but I'm not sure they could just disable them. The next smaller competitor who won't will have more user engagement and grow. If something is a very effective advantage, I believe you can only remove it by coordinated action and enforce it on a global scale.
Modern weapons are terribly efficient at killing people. But if you're the only country that's removing them from your arsenal, you depend on the mercy of your neighbors.
> 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…
> 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…
They will, in fact, just hire somebody else. American companies have access to an unlimited supply of labor. Better to stick around and try to unionize. It may not happen in your lifetime, but the other fact is the United States is a corporate hellworld. Workers have no say in anything. Until that changes, the corporations won’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
As Facebook, I'd rather pay for some yoga classes so that people don't have time to think about their actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is not about stopping the post of fb anymore but arresting these people. Yes a judge should make that decision.
The state of Burma allowed the massacres though. You can't trust a judge to shut it down.