Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 297 posts

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#81

Post by killdozer »

Flankk wrote: post #34
Mezzie wrote: post #23

Probably a wise decision, and not just because of conflicts between the different sides (I can't imagine there's a large pro-life contingent at Meta), but because of the dumpster fire that intra-political discussions have turned into. Some people feel like discussing this in anything other than emotional terms is inappropriate, some people feel like we need to discuss the legal theory and history behind what happened…

There's way too much emotion in politics these days. I would like to see a return of rational discourse. I've had my fill of both the screaming liberals and the dusty conservatives. Most of the complex issues deal with morality so it's probably all for naught. The tip of the morality pyramid is God for most people. No point using empirical evidence when you don't believe in it to begin with.

No post body was provided.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#82

Post by woodruffw »

_8j50 wrote: post #72
woodruffw wrote: post #44

The learned oblivion in this discussion is very disheartening: every person saying to “leave politics at home” should understand that our basic boundaries around personal and working time came from long and protracted political battles over the powers of our employers. Those battles were fought because people complained, loudly at their workplaces, and won their colleagues over. Abortion is not the labor movement, bu…

It's not the place. Don't shit where you eat. When you have these discussions at work people are forced to listen to your view, not only are they not getting paid for that, their response will have consequences. Are you looking for coworkers to reaffirm your belief or an actual discussion? Because if it is the latter the Janet from accounting might feel strongly about capital punishment for women who abort, now shoul…

Where’s the force? Nobody is required to have lunch with me; nobody is required to respond to random off-topic messages on chat applications.

We’re taking about the thing that each of us spends 1/3 of our weekdays doing. The majority of our waking hours. It’s one of the largest aspects of all our lives, and is fundamentally derived from the outcomes of very recent political battles over the roles of individual laborers.

I believe that we owe it to ourselves and, as a basic matter of respect, to our coworkers, to have important discussions. If you don’t want that for yourself, then you can stick to sports and weather. That’s fine too!

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#83

Post by thr0wawayf00 »

Syonyk wrote: post #75
thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the same time, I have seen firsthand how ridiculous such internal discussions have become at Twitter, and they silently take away so much of my work time and put me on the path of depression To be frank, this is Twitter in a nutshell to an outsider like me: a major personal time-waster that typically ends in anger and depression. I guess it's not surprising that internal conversations for the platform that owns…

> Is it even possible to have effective conversations about these topics online at all? Yes. Just not at scale, and not in a way that prioritizes ad revenue via "engagement" at all cost. Prioritizing longer form, in depth content, and discouraging "rapid reaction hot takes" helps a lot. The social media companies could optimize for this, and you see it on HN with the "Sorry, this particular thread is getting short, s…

This makes sense. Unfortunately, the cynic in me thinks that even if this is technically feasible (i.e. the software could be designed to facilitate healthier discourse), the reality is that the money would never allow it to happen as you rightly point out. So given that, is it actually possible? I don't think so.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#85

Post by Kinrany »

claytongulick wrote: post #12
zeronine wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

better keep my mouth shut then, can't have the productivity police issuing me a conversation penalty or i might end up in the stop-being-human prison

Working for an employer is selling your time and effort to them. During the time that the employer is purchasing from you, your duty is to your employer, fulfilling their legal requests. If you don't fulfill this duty, they will no longer have a desire to buy your time. It's really not any more complicated than that.

Fortunately the reverse also works*: if the employer doesn't follow the rules the employees agreed on, they will no longer want to sell their time.

*but less often because it's harder for employees to coordinate

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#86

Post by jjulius »

fzeroracer wrote: post #59
jjulius wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm as militantly "Fuck Facebook" as the next guy, but neither Zuckerberg nor Sandberg are named in that article at all . Do you have any actually citable evidence that shows that either of them were involved in the push for Kavanaugh's nomination and/or confirmation?

Why do they have to be directly named? One of the highest held positions in FB pushed for and advocated for political positions that directly impact workers. You could argue that his personal political beliefs have nothing to do with the company, but he serves as an advocate for conservative voices within FB. For better or worse, his political beliefs are a large part of Facebook and the other executives enable that.…

>Why do they have to be directly named?

OP said:

>Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg ... are partly responsible for the reversal [of Roe v Wade].

I would wager that it's fair to say that Kaplan would've pushed for Kavanaugh whether he was employed by FB or someone else. Unless someone can show me where he did this with the instruction and/or support of Zuckerberg/Sandberg, I am reluctant to hold them "partly responsible" for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, despite my pre-existing misgivings towards both of them. Kaplan, on the other hand? Sure.

>One of the highest held positions in FB pushed for and advocated for political positions that directly impact workers.

Yup! On this we agree. But again, that's Kaplan we're talking about, not Zuckerberg/Sandberg.

>You could argue that his personal political beliefs have nothing to do with the company, but he serves as an advocate for conservative voices within FB. For better or worse, his political beliefs are a large part of Facebook and the other executives enable that. The executive team directly represents the company in a way that your average worker does not and for workers to not discuss things executives do that directly impact them is wrong.

Just because I am reluctant to toss blame around with abandon doesn't mean that I don't share this viewpoint.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#87

Post by landemva »

endurance789xx wrote: post #29
Mezzie wrote: post #23

Probably a wise decision, and not just because of conflicts between the different sides (I can't imagine there's a large pro-life contingent at Meta), but because of the dumpster fire that intra-political discussions have turned into. Some people feel like discussing this in anything other than emotional terms is inappropriate, some people feel like we need to discuss the legal theory and history behind what happened…

Totally agree! I feel helpless and afraid of the Supreme court ruling. At the same time, I have seen firsthand how ridiculous such internal discussions have become at Twitter, and they silently take away so much of my work time and put me on the path of depression!

No post body was provided.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#88

Post by xbar »

CodeBeater wrote: post #18

I think that we are missing the point here. Meta is banning open discussion on their internal platform. It does not mean that you can't chat about it with a co-worker that also happens to be your friend. I think it's reasonable. It has nothing to do with not getting people distracted, but all to do with having one less problem to deal with.

You are right. Limiting discussion groups to 20 people.

Has anyone here organized a political discussion at work involving more than 20 people?

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#89

Post by drewcoo »

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #11
zeronine wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

better keep my mouth shut then, can't have the productivity police issuing me a conversation penalty or i might end up in the stop-being-human prison

You're at work doing a job, you aren't getting paid to converse about non work matters. If working at say Coinbase or any other apolitical tech company isn't your cup of tea, then there are plenty of politically charged places you can work instead that also need software engineers such as the CTO office of the President, Defense tech, think tanks, Congressional offices, Twitter, Planned Parenthood, PETA, and any othe…

If I'm at work doing a job, then I'm paid to get the job done. And how I manage my time and what I'm allowed to think or discuss are my concern.

There is no such monster as "politically neutral." That is synonymous with "supporting the status quo," which is a political stance. It's the trolley problem - not deciding is still opting into a bad option.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#90

Post by Volundr »

bogantech wrote: post #53
Volundr wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the executives don't make people depressed and angry and destroy productivity?

Not as much as people who don't stop screaming about in slack all day every day. There's always something and it never stops

I can't agree with this. I've never found disagreement between co-workers to have near the effect on moral as having some executive take the opportunity to lecture people about it in an all hands or make their personal opinion the official position of the company.
Post reply on HN