FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

fgrtr3terwy wrote: post #85

Facebook wants their employees to stop talking about politics, even though Facebook by its nature takes stances on deeply political topics. How exactly do you avoid political discussion when you're asking what constitutes hate speech, whether a US president should be allowed to violate Facebook's content guidelines, or to what extent governments can spread misinformation in other countries? If you work at Facebook, y…

"Curb" here doesn't seem to mean "ban". What Facebook wants is for employees to avoid the totalizing view of politics you're describing, where political discussion needs to occur in all places at all times and declaring a "no politics zone" constitutes taking a side.

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

#92

Post by dylan604 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 9:19 PM UTC

jseliger wrote: post #27

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?

It's interesting to watch companies rediscover the old rule about leaving politics and religion at the door.

When your company is the place the rest of the planet gather to discuss these very topics, it's not easy to not have to talk about them just in discussing what topics your platform is being used.

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

#93

Post by xamuel » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 9:22 PM UTC

fgrtr3terwy wrote: post #85

Facebook wants their employees to stop talking about politics, even though Facebook by its nature takes stances on deeply political topics. How exactly do you avoid political discussion when you're asking what constitutes hate speech, whether a US president should be allowed to violate Facebook's content guidelines, or to what extent governments can spread misinformation in other countries? If you work at Facebook, y…

>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 Facebook should comply with those laws. Nothing about Facebook's nature forces them to go beyond that and act as de facto language legislators.

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

#94

Post by t-writescode » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 9:22 PM UTC

sigstoat wrote: post #33

t-writescode wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because ethical values are usually based on some political orientation Are you sure that isn't exactly backwards? Because it definitely should be the other direction in my very strong opinion. One's morals or beliefs on ethics should inform their politics, not the other way around. One way is based around a person's inner being, the other is molding their being and stances based on a sports team.

one of you is describing the world as it is, and the other the world as you think it ought to be.

It's how I vote and how I encourage everyone to vote.

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

#95

Post by dylan604 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 9:23 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #43

ugh123 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that employees that are taking advantage of free speech within the workplace are forcing others into the debate unwillingly, and this is causing strife and resentment. I applaud the move.

"Forcing"? Is there actual force involved, or is it just more speech?

If you are at work in an open floor plan just trying to do your job while some of your co-workers are carrying on about whatever, you are pretty much forced to have to listen to it. You are now no longer achieving 100% of what you could be doing because your brain is distracted. That's before you even attempt to participate.

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

#96

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

gbpz wrote: post #87

gfodor wrote: post #53

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.

[deleted]

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

#97

Post by lacker » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 9:25 PM UTC

fgrtr3terwy wrote: post #85

Facebook wants their employees to stop talking about politics, even though Facebook by its nature takes stances on deeply political topics. How exactly do you avoid political discussion when you're asking what constitutes hate speech, whether a US president should be allowed to violate Facebook's content guidelines, or to what extent governments can spread misinformation in other countries? If you work at Facebook, y…

How exactly do you avoid political discussion when you're asking what constitutes hate speech

Just like any corporate decision, you have a small number of people who are relevant to making the decision, and they discuss among themselves. It isn't productive to have 10,000 people who are all angry if Facebook doesn't make the decision their way, and they each spend an hour complaining about it on Facebook, while claiming that they're doing work because they're discussing a corporate decision.

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

#98

Post by sevilo » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 9:26 PM UTC

satya71 wrote: post #8

How about bringing the same rules to the wider FB? I just want to look at baby pictures and connect with friends. I don't want to be part of a machinery that spreads misinformation and conspiracy theories.

I wonder what happened... the early days of FB you're still somewhat close to your friend circle and therefore most of the content were personal updates. At then at some point Facebook started suggested links, posts that you have not explicitly followed, news articles that may or may not have been verified. Now every time I check the comments under such posts, it's people arguing with each other, and then people share and spread whatever they see from these suggested posts looking to confirm their existing beliefs even more strongly. And then people for some reason started believing they "own" the right to write whatever they desire on their wall, and it's a platform for spreading their political opinions.

Just less than 10 years ago, it would've been considered very rude to push your religious or political opinions on to others, especially when it's a professional setting it would've been considered highly unprofessional. But nowadays that line doesn't seem to exist anymore.

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

#99

Post by elliekelly » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #91

fgrtr3terwy wrote: post #85

Facebook wants their employees to stop talking about politics, even though Facebook by its nature takes stances on deeply political topics. How exactly do you avoid political discussion when you're asking what constitutes hate speech, whether a US president should be allowed to violate Facebook's content guidelines, or to what extent governments can spread misinformation in other countries? If you work at Facebook, y…

"Curb" here doesn't seem to mean "ban". What Facebook wants is for employees to avoid the totalizing view of politics you're describing, where political discussion needs to occur in all places at all times and declaring a "no politics zone" constitutes taking a side.

And that's an entirely reasonable stance for management to take at most companies. But not facebook. They've deliberately tailored the platform to be a monetized political outrage machine. Its like ESPN announcing they plan to "curb" sports talk in the office.

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

#100

Post by joshuamorton » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

xamuel wrote: post #93

fgrtr3terwy wrote: post #85

Facebook wants their employees to stop talking about politics, even though Facebook by its nature takes stances on deeply political topics. How exactly do you avoid political discussion when you're asking what constitutes hate speech, whether a US president should be allowed to violate Facebook's content guidelines, or to what extent governments can spread misinformation in other countries? If you work at Facebook, y…

>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…

Perhaps this demonstrates why facebook is fundamentally different from an isp.

Facebook doesn't "facilitate" communication in the same way a computer "facilitates" communication. It facilitates communication in the same way that a forum or book club or group of people facilitates communication. Groups require some moderation to remain popular. Facebook is driven to moderate by the market.