9 ms·
The invisibility of Sheryl Sandberg
- kenjackson 9y agoThe sheer amount of ads that popped up on that page made it unusable.
- foobaw 9y agoIt's obvious her PR team thinks it's better to just stay quiet than putting any sort of statement out. If you've met her, you'll know she's extremely brilliant, but I don't think this situation is something that can be solved by a statement. I'm assuming a lot of actions will be taken first internally before she speaks publically.
- fatjokes 9y ago> If you've met her, you'll know she's extremely brilliant Any examples?
- iopuy 9y agoDoes brilliant need to be quantified?
- iopuy 9y agoReplying to my reply. What I mean is the phrase "extremely brilliant" could be restated as just "brilliant." This wasn't a slight on your comment, I'd also like to hear some examples.
- fatjokes 9y agoWell the parent stated "if you met her, you'd know...". So I was wondering if they had specific examples that would lead someone who meets her to come to that conclusion. I wasn't paying attention to the "extremely" part. Of course there's her background, but 1) that doesn't require anyone to know her and 2) it means she's successful, which may or may not mean she's brilliant. Perhaps I'm just jaded by years in a BigCo. All a high position means to me is that they're "brilliant" at politicking and networking. (And staying silent in this case may be an example of that "brilliance").
- SlowRobotAhead 9y agoThis is obvious and the best move she can make for her employer. I don't get why this would be "infuriating" or a mystery. OF COURSE she's going to lay low.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y agoOF COURSE only follows if this is such an unsolveable problem that running away is the only option. Given that the FTC are making interested noises and the EU are very interested too, it’s just as likely she’s trying to avoid getting “her brand” too closely associated with the mess. If I’m wrong and the problem is fixable, now is the perfect time to demonstrate extreme brilliance by fixing it.
- adventured 9y agoThey've been working pretty hard to avoid Sandberg getting any of the credit that she apparently deserves. Facebook bent the NY Times to altering one of its recent stories that noted Sandberg's culpability in one of the messes. "Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigation and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief operating officer, according to the current and former employees, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters." "Perlroth [NY Times reporter], however, confirmed that a change occurred after Facebook’s public relations team reached out to the New York Times with a statement some time after the story was published." https://lawandcrime.com/exclusive/facebook-forces-nyt-to-quietly-delete-unflattering-reference-to-sheryl-sandberg-in-story-about-russian-trolls/ https://lawandcrime.com/exclusive/facebook-forces-nyt-to-qui...
- exolymph 9y agoNYT heavily disputed that: https://www.cjr.org/the_new_gatekeepers/nytimes-facebook.php https://www.cjr.org/the_new_gatekeepers/nytimes-facebook.php
- Panjam 9y agoIt's laughable she is called brilliant: anyone with a shred of common sense would guess that a douchebag business model like FB is ultimately going to be a liability.
- Rainymood 9y agoHonestly, it wouldn't matter what she would say, people will be outraged anyway.
- boomzilla 9y agoTwo words: plausible deniability
- lr4444lr 9y agoShe doesn't want to lean in too far.
- dawhizkid 9y agoIt is pretty amazing how few controversies of this scale have surfaced given how controversial the company has always been ( I recall seeing survey results on how little the public trusted FB compared to other tech cos years ago). I guess people don't ask too many hard questions when the story has been about the skyrocketing stock price over last few years.
- SlowRobotAhead 9y ago... But it's where all the people I didn't like in highschool signed up to so ... I need it? edit: wow HN... maybe you don't really get that people go out of their way to intentionally ignore controversy because of a shallow periceved value? That no one questions a stock price when it's on the way up for "household names"? Perhaps I could have been less subtle.
- mcknz 9y agoOne of the things I've learned about The Hill's opinion page is to background check the contributor -- seems like just about anyone can get an article there.
- cgb223 9y agoDid you background check this contributor? What did you find?
- mcknz 9y agoFirst Google result is a link to Fox News, and an article titled "Liz Peek: Census 2020 – Liberals, get over it, we must ask about citizenship!" People can agree or disagree with that, but The Hill does not appear to have a consistent editorial stance that is separate from individual authors. I have seen moderate contributors as well as more extreme partisan ones.
- opmelogy 9y ago"Liz Peek: Census 2020 – Liberals, get over it, we must ask about citizenship!" This is enough to ignore the author and bury the article. Anyone that uses the term "liberal" or "conservative" as a way to drive a wedge between Americans in order to offend, distract, and "win" are not worth the time.
- sincerely 9y agoFirst of all, a lot of people will self-identify as liberal or conservative, which usually lines up with whether or not they tend to support Republicans or Democrats. They're not incredibly loaded terms. Secondly, writers almost never get to choose the title their piece runs under. You'll notice that often the headline of an article doesn't /quite/ seem to match the content.
- opmelogy 9y agoAgreed on both counts. Although your second point just seems to feed into the idea of not just rolling in "journalists" into the ignore category, but news outlets if they are actively involved in this BS. For the actual quote, it comes from here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/28/liz-peek-census-2020-liberals-get-over-it-must-ask-about-citizenship.html http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/28/liz-peek-census-20... "Liberals are outraged over the Trump administration’s decision to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census." That's the first line from the article, which clearly pits liberals as being the problem here while implying that conservatives automatically disagree (or in this case, "you are on the right side if you agree with me."). It's basic manipulation. People that behave this way are not worth the energy. They just get in the way most of the time.
- JustSomeNobody 9y agoIf she is gonna run in 2020 she doesn't want to give anyone any talking points to use against her. Also, her absence isn't surprising given how dismissive Facebook in general is being about this.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y agoIf she’s planning to run for President, running away from this challenge is hardly going to improve her chances. It’s not as if the media haven’t noticed her absence.
- cgb223 9y ago> She is politically engaged, having contributed $120,000 to Democrat campaigns in 2016. Her book tours have taken on the feel of someone sounding out campaign themes. Having worked in politics in DC I can tell you that this is a very small amount of money to donate for someone who's politically motivated or interested in running Book tours often act like campaign tours, especially when your book is promoting a certain attitude or culture (Lean In) If this is the only evidence of a political run the author has, I wouldn't hold your breath for a 2020 run. Plus its The Hill, which is a very politically focused news source in general, so that probably was just added to make it a little more interesting for its reader-base
- wl78393 9y agohttps://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/19070#efmACIAD6 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/19070#efmACIAD6 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/56638#efmAAGAA2ADoAD0AElAE1AFCAFRAHdAI2 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/56638#efmAAGAA2...
- michaelchisari 9y agoI suspect you posted this because you read this and see a scandal, but all I see is someone wanting their preferred candidate to win.
- abritinthebay 9y agoWhich is exactly what it was. Especially when you read the full chain and other emails.
- Overtonwindow 9y agoAs someone who does work on the Hill, that's not an insignificant amount, and not when its coming from Sandberg. I don't see that she's interested, or shown interest, in running for office. Mark on the other hand... That's a different story. As one of Facebook's most politically connected executives, it is very strange why no one has heard from Sheryl.
- 9y ago
- psyc 9y agoSandberg comes across to me like a bad actor in the video (in the Hollywood / stage sense) and I mean more than usual / more than I expect even from an executive. I could barely watch it, it oozed inauthenticity so badly. Not too sympathetic on the gut level.
- oflannabhra 9y agoYeah, talk about heavily scripted responses.
- psyc 9y agoEven more than that, it looks like she's struggling to swallow what she herself is saying.
- Panjam 9y agoIt's what they call "lawyered responses" in Singapore. Watch this prat from Facebook get his arse served to him by a Singaporean MP. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ziTfDdffUKs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ziTfDdffUKs This is funny in a way, but I think it's also very shocking that the FB spokesman felt sufficiently mandated to talk to a democratic representative in that way. I guess the spokesman might have jut been having a bad day, but I did wonder whether the rudeness was the function of a really toxic - I would even say colonialist - culture at FB.
- psyc 9y agoThat was really satisfying to watch. The difference in tone and articulation between the prat and the mature, thoughtful, and seemingly genuine MP is striking.
- dbt00 9y agoI don’t think it benefits anybody two have two mixed messages coming from two different FB leaders right now, and if only one of them is going to speak up it might as well be Mark. Her saying “ditto” a lot is not going to help. Her job right now should be inward focused while Mark takes the heat. If his messaging doesn’t work, she’s plan B when they need to pivot. (Disclaimer: I’ve never worked at FB and I hope it goes away in its current form.)
- tarboreus 9y agoMaybe it's just me, but did social norms around first names change? I wouldn't call Steven Spielberg "Steven." I'd say "Steven Spielberg" or "Spielberg." But this is HN and it's entirely possible you've worked with Mark Zuckerberg.
- seatotree 9y agoIt is just you.
- ben_jones 9y agoI really don't like how people on HN and otherwise have taken to calling Mark Zuckerberg "Zuck". At this point I feel like its some kind of playground insult people are using because it rhyme's with the word "fuck". Am I misinterpreting it?
- brandnewlow 9y agoI don't think its meant as an insult. I think people use it because it implies familiarity, is fun to read/say, and AFAIK is Zuckerberg's old IM/IRC handle which makes it a way to reference his past as an actual coder/hacker. I see it more as a sign of respect when used on HN.
- jonathankoren 9y agoYou’re misinterpetting it. He’s been known as Zuck since Facebook started. It’s even his email and login.
- 9y ago
- naturalgradient 9y agoAs someone entering the workforce soon, it's very disappointing to see teach leaders who enjoyed the spotlight on their elevator ride up completely disappearing and pretending they have nothing to do with what they brought onto the world. Even if you pretend you didn't know (and at the top, it's your responsibility to know), you can't pretend not to know going forward. Quit. Do something. Had a lunch conversation with other CS PhDs today (mostly in machine learning) - Facebook is so out, everyone actively spoke out against working there. Was uplifting to hear.
- Htyv 9y agoSandberg is a classist asshole.
- chiefalchemist 9y agoCorrection: What we're seeing is not leadership. Leadership is a verb. It's actions, not words. In the context of that definition, SS is not a leader, and should not be referred to as such.
- cylinder 9y agoLeadership is a noun.
- chiefalchemist 9y agoThanks mom. Are you done proof reading my paper yet? Did you get to the part on metaphors and analogies?
- Rafuino 9y agoWhere are those other CS PhDs looking to work instead? Am very curious to know how these highly in-demand people make decisions about where to work and the impact their work can have.
- joejerryronnie 9y ago
- brandon272 9y agoCan we stop calling Sheryl Sandberg the "adult in the room"? Mark Zuckerberg is 33 years old, not 16.
- ggm 9y agoThe metaphorical value here is that she is perceived as the hire to "be" the adult in the room, because Zuckerberg was perceived as being incapable of fulfilling the role. Both of them display the same flaws btw. If we should cease to say this, its only because its an impossible goal. But, as a sharp-edged reminder of expectations vs reality it still has some merit. And, humour. TL;DR no, it doesn't literally mean to be the only adult, it means to be expected to behave like one: age is immaterial
- Htyv 9y agoHe behaves as a 16 year old, which is why he hired Sandberg specifically to mother him.
- Nomentatus 9y ago"The neurotypical in the room" ??
- JauntTrooper 9y agoHe’s not much younger than Sandberg was when she became Facebooks COO (38 yrs old).
- methodover 9y agoYet another article mining (mostly misplaced) FB outrage for clicks and views. Yawn.
- feelin_googley 9y agoActual title: "The infuriating invisibility of Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg" "Mar. 20, 2018 3:34 PM ET With criticism swelling about the lack of a public statement from Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) CEO Mark Zuckerberg on the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the company held an open employee meeting today to discuss the matter, but neither Zuckerberg nor Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg attended, the Daily Beast reports." Source: https://seekingalpha.com/news/3340524-report-zuckerberg-sandberg-skip-facebook-employee-meeting https://seekingalpha.com/news/3340524-report-zuckerberg-sand... Could be she is "invisible" because shes just too busy working behind the scenes. "Sandberg: We did disclose -- on the Russian manipulation, we did disclose. We gave the information to Congress. We made it clear to people if they had seen those pages. There's a place you can go we [oops dont suggest its their responsibilty to look, rephrase] -- every situation we worked to get to the bottom of this we want to disclose. Sometimes, and I would say certainly this past week, we speak too slowly. If I could live this past week again, I would have definitely had Mark and myself out speaking earlier, but we were trying to get to the bottom of this and make sure we could take strong action. Our commitment is clear. We know this is an issue of trust. We know this is a critical moment for our company, for the service we provide. We are going to do everything we can. There will always be bad actors and I don't want to minimize that. But we are going to do everything we can to find bad actors. We're going to open tools transparently so people can help us find the bad actors on our platform. We're gonna notify users and we're gonna shut them down as fast as we can." Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/22/cnbc-exclusive-cnbc-transcript-sheryl-sandberg-sits-down-with-cnbcs-julia-boorstin-today.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/22/cnbc-exclusive-cnbc-transcri...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- megamindbrian2 9y agoShe quits
- chiefalchemist 9y agoShe's hiding. She was aware of all these (profitable) transgressions. Bottom line (pun intended): She's keeping a __low__ profile out of fear of being called to testify under oath. That would be risky, to say the least.
- feelin_googley 9y ago"Zuckerberg's resignation would open up the possibility of a world-changing and reputation-enhancing second chapter, not only for him personally but also for Facebook the corporation. ... That said, the new CEO should not be Sheryl Sandberg. She's just as culpable as Zuckerberg, in terms of how Facebook got into its current predicament, and she's far too associated with the ancient regime." Source: https://www.wired.com/story/the-case-for-a-zuck-free-facebook/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-case-for-a-zuck-free-faceboo...
- throwaway84742 9y agoI think she might be harboring hope of becoming the CEO of FB one day. If that’s the case, letting Zuck accumulate bad PR baggage is a good move.
- erdojo 9y agoEither she's hoping that a short digital trail will limit the damage this event will have on any political ambitions, or this event has caused such as rift between her and Zuck that he's intentionally keeping her out of the spotlight. If the latter, expect her "resignation" for "family reasons" in about 60-90 days.