3 ms·

What did leaking this memo actually accomplish? If you are someone who wants tech companies to be accountable for their impact on society you should welcome the

What did leaking this memo actually accomplish? If you are someone who wants tech companies to be accountable for their impact on society you should welcome these internal conversations. All that the leak will do is make them less likely.

Analemma_ 9y ago
There is the "WikiLeaks justification": leaking this memo will force Facebook to have more vigorous internal controls for locking down information, making them less efficient and hastening their downfall.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
marricks 9y ago
Conversations where bosses tell their employees we should connect more people and grow the network no matter the cost? You're right we should have conversations about this, but publicly. Facebook surrendered it's right to discuss such things privately when it's willfully kept lax policies on sharing users data. Stuff like this should leak earlier so we can talk about it before, rather than after, awful things happen.
- hype7 9y ago
  I’m far from the biggest fan of Facebook, but I’m absolutely a fan of playing devils advocate in an organization if for no other reason than to solicit reactions and get people engaged. As someone who will use this device sparingly when appropriate, that’s really what this post looked like to me (as opposed to someone who was in it to get terrorists signed up to fb... really?). I honestly feel sorry for the guy
  - thisiszilff 9y ago
    On the other hand, have we really gotten to the point where we have to try to provoke others into a debate? Why can't we state what we mean, what we think, what we're uncertain about, what questions we'd like to discuss in order to foster discussion instead of provoking it. Playing devil's advocate is fine when it's understood what's going on and why you're playing devil's advocate, but when there's ambiguity you play this game of "yes I said that I didn't mean it though" which ends up sounding weak as it does in those case. Devil's advocate is a great cognitive strategy for exploring an issue together, but it's a very poor conversational strategy.
    - overeater 9y ago
      No, I don't see anything that says provoking others into a debate is the only means of conversation, just one possible way of prompting a discussion. I imagine a straightforward discussion as your described is the norm, and this could be one case where they were provocative and so was selected to be leaked. But I agree with your second point that this does not appear to be such a case.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    I do believe he meant it when he was saying unethical behaviors and negative effects on society were worth the greater good of connectivity.
  - thotaway 9y ago
    You are mistaken. At Facebook, the devils advocate would argue in favor of government regulation.
  - nradov 9y ago
    When I play devil's advocate I clearly state what I'm doing up front. This smells like an attempt at rewriting history.
  - zer00eyz 9y ago
    You don't inspire this sort of debate by putting up a straw man. You inspire this sort of debate by thought exercise and ask about actual application - you couch the conversation to direct your staff to stronger ethics. If this conversation were at Uber, in their self driving car division the consequences of this would be human life. The way to have that conversation, with context would be to couch it in the "trolly problem" - because that would keep the framing. Ethics, the word is ethics - Facebook is clearly lacking them. Were "dumb fucks" according to FB's chief - and the fish rots from the head down. And the staff's response "find the leakers" -- funny how many groups of people I find despicable seem to chant this.
  - Xylakant 9y ago
    It’s really not a good idea to play the devils advocate as a high ranking individual in a company without being super extra explicitly clear about that. People might mistake it as the companies position, especially if no other high ranking individual contradicts or clarifies he companies position.
- Aunche 9y ago
  Memos like this allow for open discourse within the company. Leaks only encourage companies to be even more closed off. Facebook could easily hide their language in corporate speak if they really want to encourage people to drink the corporate Kool Aid.
- Cookingboy 9y ago
  That's not what the memo was, it was not a case where "bosses tell their employees what they should do". It was a case of starting a debate by voicing an extreme opinion.
  - shanghaiaway 9y ago
    No it wasn't. The memo is exactly and clearly telling employees what to think and do. No questions allowed.
checkyoursudo 9y ago
The thesis of the memo couldn't be written any other way? I think you could write about the ideas contained in Boz's memo in such a way that if the memo leaked you still wouldn't look like huge bleeps. It's not the conversations that are getting them into trouble. If it were just this memo, then nobody would care. Their action are getting them into trouble. Leaking memos like this merely offers a window into their souls.
- arebop 9y ago
  Of course it could have been written in the style of a press release or perhaps reduced to a politician-style soundbite. But although pablum is harmless when leaked, it doesn't have the nuance needed to give real direction to smart and powerful knowledge workers. It is also bland and may be regarded by thoughtful workers as insincere.
  - JasonFruit 9y ago
    This didn't have nuance. If the guy isn't lying, he was throwing a bomb to get people to react; if he is lying, he was floating the worst let-us-do-evil-that-good-may-come company line I've personally ever seen. In neither case was this a nuanced statement!
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - arebop 9y ago
      It was much more nuanced than the headlines such as the one used by BuzzFeed in their original story [https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanmac/growth-at-any-cost-top-facebook-executive-defended-data?utm_term=.uezj9Lnl2#.rx6zJ6bEw https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanmac/growth-at-any-cost-top-face...]. He was trying to start a meaningful conversation, which is basically impossible to do under the constraint that you avoid giving adversaries any way to take your remarks out of context and spin them to manufacture outrage.
  - genericone 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
thaumaturgy 9y ago
Companies sometimes drink so much of their own kool-aid that they lose all perspective on what's actually important. Shining a light on conversations like this one can be an ego-check, where people who don't work at Facebook can say, "hey ... wait a minute here...". It's an "emperor's new clothes" situation where we all get to play the role of the child.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>What did leaking this memo actually accomplish? It showed that FB says one thing in public and then does the opposite in private.

Analemma_ 9y ago

There is the "WikiLeaks justification": leaking this memo will force Facebook to have more vigorous internal controls for locking down information, making them less efficient and hastening their downfall.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

marricks 9y ago

Conversations where bosses tell their employees we should connect more people and grow the network no matter the cost? You're right we should have conversations about this, but publicly. Facebook surrendered it's right to discuss such things privately when it's willfully kept lax policies on sharing users data. Stuff like this should leak earlier so we can talk about it before, rather than after, awful things happen.

hype7 9y ago
I’m far from the biggest fan of Facebook, but I’m absolutely a fan of playing devils advocate in an organization if for no other reason than to solicit reactions and get people engaged. As someone who will use this device sparingly when appropriate, that’s really what this post looked like to me (as opposed to someone who was in it to get terrorists signed up to fb... really?). I honestly feel sorry for the guy
- thisiszilff 9y ago
  On the other hand, have we really gotten to the point where we have to try to provoke others into a debate? Why can't we state what we mean, what we think, what we're uncertain about, what questions we'd like to discuss in order to foster discussion instead of provoking it. Playing devil's advocate is fine when it's understood what's going on and why you're playing devil's advocate, but when there's ambiguity you play this game of "yes I said that I didn't mean it though" which ends up sounding weak as it does in those case. Devil's advocate is a great cognitive strategy for exploring an issue together, but it's a very poor conversational strategy.
  - overeater 9y ago
    No, I don't see anything that says provoking others into a debate is the only means of conversation, just one possible way of prompting a discussion. I imagine a straightforward discussion as your described is the norm, and this could be one case where they were provocative and so was selected to be leaked. But I agree with your second point that this does not appear to be such a case.
- colordrops 9y ago
  I do believe he meant it when he was saying unethical behaviors and negative effects on society were worth the greater good of connectivity.
- thotaway 9y ago
  You are mistaken. At Facebook, the devils advocate would argue in favor of government regulation.
- nradov 9y ago
  When I play devil's advocate I clearly state what I'm doing up front. This smells like an attempt at rewriting history.
- zer00eyz 9y ago
  You don't inspire this sort of debate by putting up a straw man. You inspire this sort of debate by thought exercise and ask about actual application - you couch the conversation to direct your staff to stronger ethics. If this conversation were at Uber, in their self driving car division the consequences of this would be human life. The way to have that conversation, with context would be to couch it in the "trolly problem" - because that would keep the framing. Ethics, the word is ethics - Facebook is clearly lacking them. Were "dumb fucks" according to FB's chief - and the fish rots from the head down. And the staff's response "find the leakers" -- funny how many groups of people I find despicable seem to chant this.
- Xylakant 9y ago
  It’s really not a good idea to play the devils advocate as a high ranking individual in a company without being super extra explicitly clear about that. People might mistake it as the companies position, especially if no other high ranking individual contradicts or clarifies he companies position.
Aunche 9y ago
Memos like this allow for open discourse within the company. Leaks only encourage companies to be even more closed off. Facebook could easily hide their language in corporate speak if they really want to encourage people to drink the corporate Kool Aid.
Cookingboy 9y ago
That's not what the memo was, it was not a case where "bosses tell their employees what they should do". It was a case of starting a debate by voicing an extreme opinion.
- shanghaiaway 9y ago
  No it wasn't. The memo is exactly and clearly telling employees what to think and do. No questions allowed.

checkyoursudo 9y ago

The thesis of the memo couldn't be written any other way? I think you could write about the ideas contained in Boz's memo in such a way that if the memo leaked you still wouldn't look like huge bleeps. It's not the conversations that are getting them into trouble. If it were just this memo, then nobody would care. Their action are getting them into trouble. Leaking memos like this merely offers a window into their souls.

arebop 9y ago
Of course it could have been written in the style of a press release or perhaps reduced to a politician-style soundbite. But although pablum is harmless when leaked, it doesn't have the nuance needed to give real direction to smart and powerful knowledge workers. It is also bland and may be regarded by thoughtful workers as insincere.
- JasonFruit 9y ago
  This didn't have nuance. If the guy isn't lying, he was throwing a bomb to get people to react; if he is lying, he was floating the worst let-us-do-evil-that-good-may-come company line I've personally ever seen. In neither case was this a nuanced statement!
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - arebop 9y ago
    It was much more nuanced than the headlines such as the one used by BuzzFeed in their original story [https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanmac/growth-at-any-cost-top-facebook-executive-defended-data?utm_term=.uezj9Lnl2#.rx6zJ6bEw https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanmac/growth-at-any-cost-top-face...]. He was trying to start a meaningful conversation, which is basically impossible to do under the constraint that you avoid giving adversaries any way to take your remarks out of context and spin them to manufacture outrage.
- genericone 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

thaumaturgy 9y ago

Companies sometimes drink so much of their own kool-aid that they lose all perspective on what's actually important. Shining a light on conversations like this one can be an ego-check, where people who don't work at Facebook can say, "hey ... wait a minute here...". It's an "emperor's new clothes" situation where we all get to play the role of the child.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

>What did leaking this memo actually accomplish? It showed that FB says one thing in public and then does the opposite in private.