5 ms·

I think you're missing the greater context here. Bosworth's memo is classic end justifies the means. This is almost an admission that they knew things they were

by dpwm 9y ago

I think you're missing the greater context here. Bosworth's memo is classic end justifies the means. This is almost an admission that they knew things they were doing would be deeply unpopular. The post in full doesn't read at all like it was to stimulate discussion. It reads more like it was to silence dissent. If you really wanted to stimulate discussion and gather employee views on this stuff, you'd send a survey round. But the relationship is still asymmetrical between boss and employee. All you're doing when posting something like this semi-publicly is creating an environment where more quiet conscientious views get shouted down by the loudest voices.

ribosometronome 9y ago
>It reads more like it was to silence dissent. Which makes his response read all that more hollow. Calling it a straw man? The post seems to have been an all out justification for immoral behavior by an executive. I can't imagine a Jr. Engineer or someone fresh out of college with their MA in Stats feeling super comfortable hopping in and going, "Hey this sound unethical and if people saw you saying it they would think we're hella fucked up." I'm relatively low-ranking at another big SV company and the thought of needing to stand up to a high ranking employee like that is more than a little intimidating.
- dpwm 9y ago
  > the thought of needing to stand up to a high ranking employee like that is more than a little intimidating. And not just that, but to be expected to "contribute to a discussion" in such a way that all your coworkers can see. I think as somebody who takes objection to that memo I'd probably be more inclined look for alternative work.
- jyrkesh 9y ago
  Same. I'm not even THAT low-ranking, and it's still a big deal when I push back against a VP or director on something that's in my area. For some topic where I didn't even feel like an expert, against such language, and with morals concerned? I think I'd just silently start looking for a new job.
  - Aunche 9y ago
    > I think I'd just silently start looking for a new job. That's good though. Boz already made the decision to prioritize connecting more people, despite the costs. He didn't have to tell his employees, but he did. This allows you to make the decision on whether it's worth staying at Facebook.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - jlarocco 9y ago
      It's good for that employee, but it doesn't do anything for the billions of people using Facebook.
    - chris_wot 9y ago
      So basically, he’s admitted to unethical behaviour? Is this why his heart is breaking?
- underwater 9y ago
  I had disagreements with Boz via text while I was a rank and file employee at Facebook. It didn’t change his mind, and I still thought he was incorrect. But I’d sure as hell take that situation over many others I’ve had where my only contact with execs is through occasional, content-free memos.
nipponese 9y ago
Are they truly unpopular? The events in question happened several years ago, and while this specific incident wasn't known, it was well-understood that FB profiting from harvesting personal data. In my daily casual conversations with co-workers and friends, the topic is very rarely raised, and only to speculate why the timing of the issue seems to tied to a rise in conservative politics.
skybrian 9y ago
I'd guess that sending a one-sided bombshell like that would tend to stimulate debate rather than suppressing it, at least in a company with a tradition of lively internal debate. Maybe in more top-down companies it's different? But yes, the people in power do tend to be heard more in internal debate. (Not necessarily just managers though. Good or controversial writers can also have a lot of influence.) And this does mean more soft-spoken people sometimes don't get an equal voice. Online discussions are often more heat than light. I don't think internal discussion can be replaced by surveys, though? They're both useful. There are also problems that equality doesn't fix. As the number of people scales up, the power of each person gets smaller. Filling out a survey when you know it's one of hundreds or thousands tends not to feel very empowering, or even a good use of your time.
- ethbro 9y ago
  I guess I'm comparing and contrasting this with the infamous Google sexism memo. They canned an employee for saying something unpopular they disagreed with. The fact that this went such a different way says something. Maybe that something is "the cultures of Google and Facebook are so different it explains the discrepancy." But maybe it's "Facebook wanted to float this as an ethical trial balloon."
  - intended 9y ago
    They canned an employee for creating an unholy PR shitstorm outside of the firm. Basically this is the end of the tech world and all those people who used to join these firms because they believed tech would make the world a better place. Now its going to be pretty much closed communication and minimal interaction internally. IF you have an issue, well tough balls, tech is no longer good for that - god forbid it shows up on HN. If it shows up on the media thats career suicide. I suspect its probably time for HN to be shut down soon as well.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      No they didn't, they didn't can the leaker that actually created the shitstorm, they canned Damore to appease the outraged.
jcranberry 9y ago
The consequentialism is not the talking point in the meme. What's controversial is his valuation of "the ends": that "connecting people" has greater utility than the life or happiness of a minority of those connected. I'm not going to make any assertions about the intent of the meme because I don't know the context, but the logic expressed in the meme seems to have been their strategy already to me, from the outside.
mmcnl 9y ago
Perhaps you would send a survey, Bosworth chose for a different option. Internal memos leaking out to the public without context is a classic case of causing FUD.
pbalau 9y ago
> This is almost an admission that they knew things they were doing would be deeply unpopular. Yes, and there were discussions internally about this. One could argue that the recent shift from promoting pages content to promoting your friends content might have been the result of that.
Angostura 9y ago
I must admit, when I read it, it did absolutely read to me like a contrarian attempt to start debate. I find it hard to believe that anyone would post sentiments along the lines of ‘we connect people, so what if someone commits suicide’ without it being a deliberate attempt to start debate. If he actually believed that stuff, it would be extraordinary scary. I don’t think he does.
- chris_wot 9y ago
  The problem is, you might think that but this is senior leadership putting out an email that is setting the general culture and direction for the company. He’s explicitly recognising and endorsing “questionable” (his words!) decisions made. He can’t come back and say he didn’t mean it. Besides, if he was trying to spark debate, doesn’t that mean he though my it was even potentially justifiable to use unethical practices to drive growth?
  - Angostura 9y ago
    I agree it was very poorly judged. Regarding your last point, I honestly assumed that he had seen stirrings of this kid of reasoning within the company and was attempting to ridicule it.
- rhizome 9y ago
  "The risk of sarcasm is that you're taken seriously." Trolling is a terrible leadership technique.
- underwater 9y ago
  Have you read any HN’s opinions on self driving cars? There is a strongly held belief that individual deaths don’t matter as long as, on average, deaths go down. You can argue the connecting people is inherently good, so how are Boz’s opinions any different? Boz’s pieces over the last few years tend to fall into the “Strong opinions, weakly held” category. I also suspect he argues a point that is stronger in sentiment than he really believes, to help his message stand out.
intended 9y ago
The post will always look different to outsiders wont it? most of the justifications for it to appear as dissent silencing will have to be post fact justifications as a result.

by dpwm 9y ago

ribosometronome 9y ago

>It reads more like it was to silence dissent. Which makes his response read all that more hollow. Calling it a straw man? The post seems to have been an all out justification for immoral behavior by an executive. I can't imagine a Jr. Engineer or someone fresh out of college with their MA in Stats feeling super comfortable hopping in and going, "Hey this sound unethical and if people saw you saying it they would think we're hella fucked up." I'm relatively low-ranking at another big SV company and the thought of needing to stand up to a high ranking employee like that is more than a little intimidating.

dpwm 9y ago
> the thought of needing to stand up to a high ranking employee like that is more than a little intimidating. And not just that, but to be expected to "contribute to a discussion" in such a way that all your coworkers can see. I think as somebody who takes objection to that memo I'd probably be more inclined look for alternative work.
jyrkesh 9y ago
Same. I'm not even THAT low-ranking, and it's still a big deal when I push back against a VP or director on something that's in my area. For some topic where I didn't even feel like an expert, against such language, and with morals concerned? I think I'd just silently start looking for a new job.
- Aunche 9y ago
  > I think I'd just silently start looking for a new job. That's good though. Boz already made the decision to prioritize connecting more people, despite the costs. He didn't have to tell his employees, but he did. This allows you to make the decision on whether it's worth staying at Facebook.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - jlarocco 9y ago
    It's good for that employee, but it doesn't do anything for the billions of people using Facebook.
  - chris_wot 9y ago
    So basically, he’s admitted to unethical behaviour? Is this why his heart is breaking?
underwater 9y ago
I had disagreements with Boz via text while I was a rank and file employee at Facebook. It didn’t change his mind, and I still thought he was incorrect. But I’d sure as hell take that situation over many others I’ve had where my only contact with execs is through occasional, content-free memos.

nipponese 9y ago

Are they truly unpopular? The events in question happened several years ago, and while this specific incident wasn't known, it was well-understood that FB profiting from harvesting personal data. In my daily casual conversations with co-workers and friends, the topic is very rarely raised, and only to speculate why the timing of the issue seems to tied to a rise in conservative politics.

skybrian 9y ago

I'd guess that sending a one-sided bombshell like that would tend to stimulate debate rather than suppressing it, at least in a company with a tradition of lively internal debate. Maybe in more top-down companies it's different? But yes, the people in power do tend to be heard more in internal debate. (Not necessarily just managers though. Good or controversial writers can also have a lot of influence.) And this does mean more soft-spoken people sometimes don't get an equal voice. Online discussions are often more heat than light. I don't think internal discussion can be replaced by surveys, though? They're both useful. There are also problems that equality doesn't fix. As the number of people scales up, the power of each person gets smaller. Filling out a survey when you know it's one of hundreds or thousands tends not to feel very empowering, or even a good use of your time.

ethbro 9y ago
I guess I'm comparing and contrasting this with the infamous Google sexism memo. They canned an employee for saying something unpopular they disagreed with. The fact that this went such a different way says something. Maybe that something is "the cultures of Google and Facebook are so different it explains the discrepancy." But maybe it's "Facebook wanted to float this as an ethical trial balloon."
- intended 9y ago
  They canned an employee for creating an unholy PR shitstorm outside of the firm. Basically this is the end of the tech world and all those people who used to join these firms because they believed tech would make the world a better place. Now its going to be pretty much closed communication and minimal interaction internally. IF you have an issue, well tough balls, tech is no longer good for that - god forbid it shows up on HN. If it shows up on the media thats career suicide. I suspect its probably time for HN to be shut down soon as well.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    No they didn't, they didn't can the leaker that actually created the shitstorm, they canned Damore to appease the outraged.

jcranberry 9y ago

The consequentialism is not the talking point in the meme. What's controversial is his valuation of "the ends": that "connecting people" has greater utility than the life or happiness of a minority of those connected. I'm not going to make any assertions about the intent of the meme because I don't know the context, but the logic expressed in the meme seems to have been their strategy already to me, from the outside.

mmcnl 9y ago

Perhaps you would send a survey, Bosworth chose for a different option. Internal memos leaking out to the public without context is a classic case of causing FUD.

pbalau 9y ago

> This is almost an admission that they knew things they were doing would be deeply unpopular. Yes, and there were discussions internally about this. One could argue that the recent shift from promoting pages content to promoting your friends content might have been the result of that.

Angostura 9y ago

I must admit, when I read it, it did absolutely read to me like a contrarian attempt to start debate. I find it hard to believe that anyone would post sentiments along the lines of ‘we connect people, so what if someone commits suicide’ without it being a deliberate attempt to start debate. If he actually believed that stuff, it would be extraordinary scary. I don’t think he does.

chris_wot 9y ago
The problem is, you might think that but this is senior leadership putting out an email that is setting the general culture and direction for the company. He’s explicitly recognising and endorsing “questionable” (his words!) decisions made. He can’t come back and say he didn’t mean it. Besides, if he was trying to spark debate, doesn’t that mean he though my it was even potentially justifiable to use unethical practices to drive growth?
- Angostura 9y ago
  I agree it was very poorly judged. Regarding your last point, I honestly assumed that he had seen stirrings of this kid of reasoning within the company and was attempting to ridicule it.
rhizome 9y ago
"The risk of sarcasm is that you're taken seriously." Trolling is a terrible leadership technique.
underwater 9y ago
Have you read any HN’s opinions on self driving cars? There is a strongly held belief that individual deaths don’t matter as long as, on average, deaths go down. You can argue the connecting people is inherently good, so how are Boz’s opinions any different? Boz’s pieces over the last few years tend to fall into the “Strong opinions, weakly held” category. I also suspect he argues a point that is stronger in sentiment than he really believes, to help his message stand out.

intended 9y ago

The post will always look different to outsiders wont it? most of the justifications for it to appear as dissent silencing will have to be post fact justifications as a result.