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

481–490 of 527 posts

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

#481

Post by travisoneill1 »

ketzo wrote: post #280
travisoneill1 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have worked with many LGBT colleagues who never bring up politics at work. This "existence is political" thing is just a bullshit phrase that the obnoxious people who can't go an hour without bringing that crap up use to justify it.

Correction: they never brought up politics to you . You don't know that they weren't political in their discussions with other colleagues. Perhaps it is worth considering why that might be the case. People whose existences are deeply politicized (and they do indeed exist) are not often excited to have political conversations with people who say things like "'existence is political' thing is just a bullshit phrase." I…

Kind of irrelevant as the implication of the parent is that it is impossible for the person not to bring up politics. But I have discussed politics extensively, outside of work, with a gay former co worker. Most of his political beliefs have nothing to do with being gay. The loud activist types represent only themselves and not the people they claim to.

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

#482

Post by baby »

kelnos wrote: post #461
baby wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well from my comments it should be obvious that we don’t agree :)

The problem is that we can't take your agreement or disagreement at face value. The OP that prompted this entire thread admitted, front and center, that their $400k total comp number was very seductive. People do and believe all sorts of things when their fat salary incentivizes them to do so, even if they don't consciously realize it. What's that Upton Sinclair quote? Ah, yes: "It is difficult to get a man to unders…

Oh yeah for sure, I am indeed biased and I recognize that. I still think that most people here fail to see how the app is used throughout the world in positive ways.

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

#483

Post by dahart »

kelnos wrote: post #452
dahart wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 becaus…

> You have said multiple times that it is "not about the law" and you haven't offered an alternative explanation. In addition to what the parent says about PR, there are some actual good reasons: 1. Some companies are starting to understand and believe that having a diverse team is a competitive advantage when it comes to designing and marketing products intended for a diverse audience. 2. Some companies are starting…

Hey I do agree with those things, I agree there are some actual good reasons and I agree there are PR reasons, I'm not arguing that. I guess I am miscommunicating, being misleading in a way I don't understand, or my style is grating some people.

I will just add that I agree that pushing to hire more diverse candidates isn't likely to cause a law suit for most companies. It might for a large company that is lopsided and clearly discriminating, but it'd take evidence which is hard to get. That's really outside the scope of what I thought we were talking about, though, because pushing to hire diversity isn't something that requires all employees to actively participate in the process.

The other two, avoiding implicit bias training and not removing sensitive words, in combination those could cause problems - and I know of companies where they have caused problems. If people actually use words that make multiple employees feel uncomfortable, and the company management has a record of complaints and no record of action to resolve the complaints, there is real liability there in today's world.

By and large I think there's probably a lot more agreement here under the surface than it looks like. My mistake might be failing to clarify that I'm not saying legal reasons are the only reasons. There are other reasons, I'm just saying the legal reasons are usually there, and are important. This is probably getting less true over time, where legal reasons were what it took to get some companies to actually do something, and today growing awareness means that companies are more likely to think it's the right thing to do, more likely to agree with the law, and more willing to begin taking action without any specific legal concern. I guess maybe it's quite a good sign that people here are disagreeing with me because it means things have been going the right direction, compared to my work experience over the last couple of decades.

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

#484

Post by fblifeadvice645 »

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…

As someone who also feels they’re evil (left 5+ years ago), I will grant that it’s not all bad like many here like to think. I imagine many small businesses and nonprofits derive a lot of value from their community building and targeted advertising, which is (maybe) a good thing.

That being said, it’s a good idea to understand why the pay is so high (and it’s not because they’re nice people who only want the best for their employees):

You will be expected to leave moral qualms at the door. This an unwritten rule at many companies, but Facebook had to write it. That says something.

You will be expected to work for it. Hard. The people I know at Facebook easily put in 1.5-2x the hours I do at a FAANG-ish (late nights and weekends seem to be the norm), but get paid roughly 1.5-2x what I do. If that’s a tradeoff you’re willing to make, go for it. I however am making more money than I know what to do with, and thus value all the time I’m not working (hobbies, travel, side projects, etc) way more than the money I’d make from working during that time.

At the end of the day you aren’t going to singlehandedly destroy the fabric of society all that much in your first year, so you’re fine making the above sacrifices for a year or two for some quick cash then fucking off to pursue some real interests, go for it. But I sincerely warn you against sacrificing too much of your life (youth especially) and morals for money —- it really isn’t as valuable as it’s cracked up to be.

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

#485

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

thu2111 wrote: post #429
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would notice the size of the ETL job necessary to do this (and tbh, I don't think anyone understands the individual level outputs of any large ML model well enough to accomplish this).

Evidence suggests the opposite: they would write a self-congratulatory blog post about it. For example the work Google does on "de-biasing AI" is all about taking ML models and warping its understanding of the world to reflect ideological priorities. https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.06520

That paper (and all other works in this space) are about population level inferences from the model.

My point is that the individual level outputs (which you'd need to accomplish what the OP was talking about) are essentially impossible to tune so precisely, given our current understandings of the models.

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

#486

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

kelnos wrote: post #466
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, Google's similar practices should also be prohibited. You ask as if it's obvious that someone would say no and show themselves to be a hypocrite, which is weird.

OK cool, I was interested in whether or not you were being consistent.

I don't find it weird at all, I've noticed that often people get really upset about FB or GOOG doing something, while ignoring the other, so hence my questions.

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

#487

Post by ry_co »

tolbish wrote: post #370
benjohnson wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It is a political opinion itself to think those actions are controversial. At scale, anything is political. The only solution is to keep politics out of business, and manifest our political opinions through government. Business, like economics or biology, is dismal. The most efficient and productive continue on.

Government's role is to make the ideologically agnostic machine of business align with our values. In the kind of competitive economy we have, it can only be this way. If we try to apply politics from within a business, we risk introducing instabilities and ineffeciencies, making the business less competitive–an existential threat to the values we incorporated into the business.

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

#488

Post by dragonwriter »

ry_co wrote: post #487
tolbish wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It is a political opinion itself to think those actions are controversial. At scale, anything is political. The only solution is to keep politics out of business, and manifest our political opinions through government. Business, like economics or biology, is dismal. The most efficient and productive continue on. Government's role is to make the ideologically agnostic machine of business align with our values. In the…

> It is a political opinion itself to think those actions are controversial.

No, the existence of controversy over an issue is a question of empirical fact, not political opinion.

The ascription of significance to the existence of controversy may be a political opinion (and is certainly a value-based opinion), but not the question of whether controversy exists.

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

#489

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

claudeganon wrote: post #476
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes of course? Because Facebook employees are highly paid, I imagine. The reason why that whistleblower got so much coverage is that usually all it takes to keep some quiet is to pay them off.

Like, there have been soooo many FB whistleblowers/leakers in the past four years, and yet shadow profiles (which would seem to be important to leak) have never had any backup here.

I don't think that this is a coincidence, and I 100% disagree with the notion that this is because FB employees are well paid.

I honestly think that it's because shadow profiles essentially don't exist in any meaningful form (there's probably some logs for non-FB users, but I don't think that they are aggregatable to a specific individual without an account, mostly because that would be super low value and really hard).

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

#490

Post by thu2111 »

kelnos wrote: post #467
thu2111 wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hilarious that in a thread about misinformation the idea that children are immune is being treated as not true. Death rates for COVID for people under 20 are ~zero. Babies are in fact immune, perhaps due to relatively lower levels of ACE2 expression compared to adults. HN readers seem to have totally lost it w.r.t. COVID and misinformation. It's practically guaranteed that in any thread about misinformation/FB/T…

First off, you're moving the goalposts a bit here. No one claimed that the death rate for people under 20 was anywhere near that of older age groups. Your assertion that "babies are in fact immune" is demonstrably false: https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-... shows 20 deaths for children under 1 year old. Presumably many more than that were infected but survived (unfortunately covid.cdc.gov i…

Remember you're dealing with a very noisy, FP-prone test, and there have been millions of tests by now. At those levels there are bound to be some babies that tested positive and then died, so you can't infer from it that COVID actually killed them.

To put it in perspective, according to the UK govt's own analysis, it's very likely that all currently reported positive infections are false positives!

Post reply on HN