from Hacker News

FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

by mful on 9/17/20, 6:58 PM with 493 comments

by hirundo on 9/17/20, 7:42 PM
If we were to discuss politics at work at any length we would be at immediate risk of losing valuable people. We all pretty much know where we stand on politics, and it is not together. And many of us feel very strongly about our irreconcilable positions. But by carefully not talking about them (or engaging when someone less in tune starts) we get along just fine. That's not official policy but it is a good one.
by patorjk on 9/17/20, 7:32 PM
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?
by itg on 9/17/20, 8:19 PM
Looks like tech companies are finding out there's a good reason so many older companies discouraged talk of politics, religion, etc.
by wmf on 9/17/20, 7:37 PM
Google's similar policy change leaked yesterday: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/16/google-content-moderation-in...
by throwitawayfb on 9/17/20, 10:49 PM
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 hand I'm dealt.
by mensetmanusman on 9/17/20, 9:57 PM
Interesting to see young companies fall into line. There is a reason it is against norms to talk about these things in most companies, because it causes undo conflict usually far outside of the context of what is being worked on.
by m0zg on 9/17/20, 9:35 PM
Good for them. I haven't worked at FB, but I can only assume they're similar to Google in this regard, maybe worse, since their workforce tends to be younger on average. Things were already getting pretty unbearable when I left Google years ago, and (according to people I know who still work there) have taken a turn for _much_ worse in 2016. When recruiters email, I politely decline, without specifying why, but this is largely why. I actually liked working there when it came to _work_, but the environment was extremely politicized and oppressive. No differences of opinion were tolerated at all. You'd immediately be ratted out to HR for a mere suggestion that someone is too aggressive/uncivil in enforcing the dogma on internal Google+.
by fareesh on 9/18/20, 5:41 AM
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?
by fivre on 9/17/20, 7:48 PM
I've made attempts to reach out to some of my old friends there on the T&S team in light of some evidence really blatant Russian agitprop thriving and finding an audience there. Between this and the Zhang memo, however, it looks quite doubtful that I'd be able to do much more than reconnect and share a rather depressing lunch as they explain that their hands are tied because of executive will.
The IRA and/or its successors or friends appear to have taken the same approach as Russian security services have with the rash of targeted murders in Europe, with a "this totally isn't our doing, but anyone slightly educated on the subject will recognize our hand, because we want them to be aware that it's us and we don't actually mind people knowing" wink wink nudge nudge threadbare veneer of disclaiming responsibility.
Normally, I wouldn't really care: the 2016 stuff everyone made a fuss about on social media was largely ineffective and at best served as a smokescreen to distract from their very successful actions outside social media--Buff Bernie is a lasting meme treasure and nothing more. This go 'round, however, they've apparently learned from their mistakes, and I'm seeing.evidence that personal friends _are_ receiving and and are influenced by their messaging.
I thankfully haven't really had to watch any family or friends succumb to the Fox News media poison, and thought my social circles largely insulated from that sort of problem, but I was apparently quite wrong--right about _what_ wouldn't influence people, but blind to the idea that other actors would follow the same model and create content that _would_ suck in their target audience.
https://twitter.com/evelyndouek is a good source of reporting about Facebook and other social media cos' continued lackluster attempts to stand up potemkin independent review bodies, if you want more info on the space and can stomach more disheartening news.
by kerng on 9/18/20, 1:19 AM
This seems like a wrong move. The idea seems to disassociate employees from the problems of Facebook, and the problem the platform creates...
When you work at Facebook you should know what's going on and what the company is doing and causing and trying to help fix it.
It sounds like leadership is asking employees to put the head in the sand - shouldn't a leader propose the opposite? What happened to move fast and break things?
by btbuildem on 9/18/20, 3:26 AM
The cognitive dissonance is nauseating -- on one side, a flaming sphincter of discord, pandering to the lowest common denominator. But they want the other side, the side that picks the diet and tunes the dilation to be disengaged, apolitical and obedient? I really am not sure you can have both, Zucky.
by ponker on 9/17/20, 10:40 PM
Very glad to work somewhere where people just don’t talk politics or anything serious at work. I have kids and I don’t want to risk my job over saying the wrong thing. I don’t need you to be my partner in discovering myself, let’s just discuss our work, the weather, and the local sportsball results.
by pjc50 on 9/17/20, 8:35 PM
If Facebook doesn't want to talk politics, it should stop making political donations to PACs.
by neonate on 9/17/20, 8:43 PM
https://archive.is/PdluY
by fgrtr3terwy on 9/17/20, 9:13 PM
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, your work directly or indirectly supports Facebook's political decisions. Facebook just doesn't want you to talk about it. Because Mark and the executives make the decisions, and you're just supposed to follow orders. This is how it works at many other companies. But for a long time, Facebook was able to recruit people to work their by promising that they could 'change the world' and 'make a difference.'
Side note: One of Facebook's board members apparently enjoys the company of white supremacists. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24444704 Will Facebook employees be allowed to talk about that? If you work at Facebook, how do you feel about that?
by satya71 on 9/17/20, 7:36 PM
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.
by PunchTornado on 9/17/20, 7:43 PM
People shouldn't be forced to join in political debates in the workplace. If you're not interested, you should be able to avoid climate change, racism, hate speech debates.
by ganoushoreilly on 9/17/20, 7:00 PM
Good. More companies should move this way rather than the other.
by eli on 9/17/20, 11:18 PM
I wonder what the people who justify working for Facebook because they’re “changing it from the inside” think about this.
by AlexandrB on 9/17/20, 7:28 PM
Weird that an outspoken free speech advocate like Mark Zuckerberg would want to limit the speech of his employees.
by gorgoiler on 9/18/20, 2:36 AM
Yesterday, I introduced some of my pupils — in this case, a group of ten rowdy pre-teens — to the idea of decorum and vulgarity. There’s could well be a whiff of truth to a comparison between my class of children and this story about FB employees.
It feels very old fashioned, but are we not getting a little burned out by a world where people openly nail gun their identity politics to the mast?
When I were a lad (way back in the nineties) I was taught it was rude to talk about politics, religion, or money. This applied to anywhere one was in polite company, not just at home, and definitely not at work.
by jondubois on 9/18/20, 9:57 AM
I think they should be allowed to talk about politics. Verbal conflict is always good. The reason why political conflicts are not resolvable these days is because there is a strong element of financial self-interest which is preventing honest and rational discourse.
On one side, some people have an interest in not accepting that their financial success is arbitrary and illegitimate. On the opposite side, some people feel that they have been locked out of an arbitrary wealth transfer and so they have a strong interest in not accepting that they're incompetent losers and that they deserve to be at the bottom of the food chain because they didn't time the market right (a highly speculative and irrational market too!). Or maybe they didn't pass the Facebook whiteboard test job interview questions several years back (which is also an arbitrary hiring process by many accounts)... So basically they missed out on a huge opportunity because of some fickle arbitrary reason.
I don't think blocking discourse is going to improve things. History has shown time and time again that preventing free speech will stop people from finding compromises. The only solution to the worsening problems will be violence.
If the elites keep suppressing speech, the result will be worse than WW2 and the elites will not stand a chance because it will be fought on their own turf... The elites won't even know who their enemy is. Their own friends and family members could be against them. They won't even realize it until it's too late.
The right thing to do is to find political solutions. I personally think that UBI (Universal Basic Income) would solve most problems. It wouldn't fix the wealth gap immediately, but it would fix the mechanism which is suspected of causing arbitrary (centralizing) wealth transfer and that would at least level the playing field.
UBI is a really good compromise. If the elites are so confident in their superior abilities, surely they have nothing to lose by leveling the playing field right?
BTW, I currently earn 100% passive income so I'm actually saying this as someone who is on the winning side... I've come so close to complete failure - I leaped over the crevasse in the nick of time; the system's fickleness and arbitrariness are crystal clear to me. I'm currently standing on the winning side of a very deep precipice and I can see legions of talented people running straight into it.
by unabst on 9/18/20, 5:42 AM
Zuckerburg touts free speech over Russia interfering with our elections or correcting the president or controlling the viral spread of disinformation, yet moves to control speech within the company due to inconveniences.
“If you don't stick to your values when they're being tested, they're not values: they're hobbies.”
― Jon Stewart
(Many said something similar, but I just love Jon Stewart)
by jyrkesh on 9/18/20, 6:37 AM
> 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.
by Apofis on 9/18/20, 3:20 AM
They drive their own content moderators insane. This is just corporate protectionism.
by gabereiser on 9/17/20, 11:15 PM
FB by its nature is political, as it supports its ad network. To say to employees you can’t be is really them admitting they aren’t equipped to deal with this crisis they themselves created.
by 29athrowaway on 9/18/20, 6:51 AM
There 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.
by drewcoo on 9/17/20, 8:46 PM
How has it worked at tabloid newspapers for longer than I care to remember? Same problem. This is not about tech.
by htnsao on 9/18/20, 1:22 AM
Probably better to #deleteFacebook and give everyone access to their own Mastodon instance for ~$5/yr.
by secondcoming on 9/17/20, 11:40 PM
I'm not surprised. US political 'discussions' are ruining the internet as it is, having to endure it in the workplace must be unbearable. Reddit is fucked from it, Twitter should be avoided by everyone and it's here on HN too. It's also on Slashdot even though it's dead, the San Fran office of The Register seems intent on pulling that site down too.
The sooner this fucking election is over, the better. No more having to read about Marxism, Trump, Racists, Snowflakes and Trannies.
I downloaded nVidia Broadcast a while ago, it's really quite good.
by jgacook on 9/17/20, 8:18 PM
Generally I try and shy away from being too alarmist, but I am so disillusioned with the kind of tech worker HN's userbase seems to represent. I think it's a feckless attitude to think that working in one of the best-paid, global, most influential professions in the world right now means that your only obligation is to clock in on time, code whatever you're told to code, take no ownership of the effect your work may have on the general public and collect your fat paycheck at the end of the month.
Why does it sound good to anyone that Facebook employees should be prevented from discussing the ethical implications of the product they sell their labor to create? Facebook complete lack of accountability - internal or governmental - has to date:
- incited a genocide [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...]
- provided a bias for right wing content in a American election year (and fired the employee who blew the whistle on it) [https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne...]
- exacerbated a global pandemic, indirectly causing 1000s of deaths, by not policing Covid misinformation [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/aug/19/facebook-...]
- is arguably a contributor to the global rise in authoritarianism [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/24/facebo...]
and that's really just the tip of the iceberg. If you buy into the notion that Mark Zuckerberg is a nice man in a hoodie trying to run a business that his employees are tearing down with some radical agenda then I'm sorry, but how naive are you? Facebook has a track record of ignoring the consequences of what happens on their platform in order to continue profiting. It's not a mistake, it's the point.
We should be cheering on tech workers challenging the ethics of the work they produce, not talking about how inconvenient it is for Facebook workers to start realizing how questionable the product they're building really is.
by BTCOG on 9/17/20, 11:43 PM
All this rioting and yet nobody burned down the Facebook offices. A shame, could have brought about the radical change they expected.
by iron0013 on 9/17/20, 8:25 PM
How is this different from silencing employee objections to unethical corporate practices? It’s not merely “talking politics at work” to point out that, for example, your company’s practices are helping a political party steal an election. That’s an ethical concern, not a political one.