5 ms·

Ms. Sandberg has previously posted an internal message calling Mr. Kaplan’s appearance at the hearing “a mistake.” So if this is the stance Zuckerberg and Sand

by dvtrn 8y ago

Ms. Sandberg has previously posted an internal message calling Mr. Kaplan’s appearance at the hearing “a mistake.” So if this is the stance Zuckerberg and Sandberg are taking, has that internal message been retracted? I'm in no position to demand or even suggest that some sort of consistency in conviction is warranted here-Sandberg is free to comment or not as she pleases, but it sure would be nice to see for once in these strange and heated times. Seems to me you either respect Kaplan's decision to be present for his friend, redact statements that his personal political decisions were a 'mistake', or fire him as VP of Global Public Policy and admit it was because his appearance at the SJC hearings made for bad optics, and saving face matters more than consistent convictions and that this appeal to employees is proof. Or do nothing and let people infer everything in between.

lgleason 8y ago
I think their reaction to him being there shows the anti-conservative bias still at Facebook. The statement from Zuck on respecting other views is a vein attempt at appeasing conservative concerns now that Trump + the Congress and Senate are rightfully beginning to scrutinize them, Google, Twitter etc.. If they actually meant what they said they could have simply released a statement saying that Kaplan is attending as a friend of Kavenaugh, his presence there was not at all related to his job at Facebook nor does his presence or personal opinions the opinions of Facebook etc....... If anything supporting Kaplan's choice to attend both publicly and privately would have given Facebook some ammunition to say that they are taking tolerance towards other political views seriously... At this point they are continuing to provide more ammunition to the people calling for the revocation of safe harbor, breakup of the company, increased regulation etc..
sonnyblarney 8y ago
It's not a 'personal' decision to appear on TV in front of hundreds of millions of people when you're a representative of the company. High profile actions will be interpreted as representing the interest of the company. He can personally support Kav, have dinner with him, maybe not hide anything about his support or friendship ... but making public statements, such as appearing on TV is a whole other dimension given his role. FB execs should not be involved in any kind of political controversy unless it directly affects FB. So I think it's not hypocritical for Sandberg to indicate that it was a mistake, I think it was.
- dvtrn 8y ago
  FB execs should not be involved in any kind of political controversy unless it directly affects FB. One person's political controversy could very well be another's platform. Who are any of us to decide what that dichotomy looks like if not anything but bystanders? Furthermore, if that's an opinion you really want to take, then would you similarly argue that Facebook should therefore have nothing to say politically? Ever? About anything? In any shape or form on the platform-since as easily as someone could take Kaplan's appearance and assert it as a direct endorsement of Kavanaugh coming from Facebook, I can easily suggest that any political feature on Facebook and just as similarly say it has the the approval of "coming from" Facebook. Do you see how easy it is to flip your conceit right on its head with such an absolutist demand? Can I then ask Facebook stop putting banners up reminding me to register to vote (I already am) or that I should go out and vote in my local county elections (I already did), or to have a position on LGBT Rights? (I do) If the execs shouldn't be involved in any political controversy, then the platform should be devoid of political calls to action similarly and follow that lead. Taking the long view, I don't see either happening.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    "I can easily suggest that any political feature on Facebook and just as similarly say it has the the approval of "coming from" Facebook." If you're referring to ads, then no. Those are not 'political features' because they have nothing to do with Facebook and everyone knows that, just as they know ads you see on TV have nothing to do with the network. Now if CBS execs were having public lunch every day with Donald Trump and appearing at his rallies, well, then that's going to be viewed as something else entirely. "or to have a position on LGBT Rights? (I do)" Facebook is not telling you to have a position on LGBT rights and nobody seeing ads on Facebook believes those ads are representative of Facebooks views. "Do you see how easy it is to flip your conceit right on its head with such an absolutist demand?" There's nothing either conceited or absolutist about my 'demand', in fact, it's fairly standard across most major corporations. If you're an exec and you start appearing at Trump rallies, and it might upset/offend your customers, you're going to get fired for cause right away. And rightly so. Nobody cares that much who you make donations to, or are friends with, or have dinner with. But public endorsements are that: public endorsements, and if you represent the company, then you have to check your behaviour. The exec at Facebook must be thick to think that a national appearance in front of millions during one of the biggest political nuclear wars of our generation was going to be 'ok'.

by dvtrn 8y ago

lgleason 8y ago

I think their reaction to him being there shows the anti-conservative bias still at Facebook. The statement from Zuck on respecting other views is a vein attempt at appeasing conservative concerns now that Trump + the Congress and Senate are rightfully beginning to scrutinize them, Google, Twitter etc.. If they actually meant what they said they could have simply released a statement saying that Kaplan is attending as a friend of Kavenaugh, his presence there was not at all related to his job at Facebook nor does his presence or personal opinions the opinions of Facebook etc....... If anything supporting Kaplan's choice to attend both publicly and privately would have given Facebook some ammunition to say that they are taking tolerance towards other political views seriously... At this point they are continuing to provide more ammunition to the people calling for the revocation of safe harbor, breakup of the company, increased regulation etc..

sonnyblarney 8y ago

It's not a 'personal' decision to appear on TV in front of hundreds of millions of people when you're a representative of the company. High profile actions will be interpreted as representing the interest of the company. He can personally support Kav, have dinner with him, maybe not hide anything about his support or friendship ... but making public statements, such as appearing on TV is a whole other dimension given his role. FB execs should not be involved in any kind of political controversy unless it directly affects FB. So I think it's not hypocritical for Sandberg to indicate that it was a mistake, I think it was.

dvtrn 8y ago
FB execs should not be involved in any kind of political controversy unless it directly affects FB. One person's political controversy could very well be another's platform. Who are any of us to decide what that dichotomy looks like if not anything but bystanders? Furthermore, if that's an opinion you really want to take, then would you similarly argue that Facebook should therefore have nothing to say politically? Ever? About anything? In any shape or form on the platform-since as easily as someone could take Kaplan's appearance and assert it as a direct endorsement of Kavanaugh coming from Facebook, I can easily suggest that any political feature on Facebook and just as similarly say it has the the approval of "coming from" Facebook. Do you see how easy it is to flip your conceit right on its head with such an absolutist demand? Can I then ask Facebook stop putting banners up reminding me to register to vote (I already am) or that I should go out and vote in my local county elections (I already did), or to have a position on LGBT Rights? (I do) If the execs shouldn't be involved in any political controversy, then the platform should be devoid of political calls to action similarly and follow that lead. Taking the long view, I don't see either happening.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "I can easily suggest that any political feature on Facebook and just as similarly say it has the the approval of "coming from" Facebook." If you're referring to ads, then no. Those are not 'political features' because they have nothing to do with Facebook and everyone knows that, just as they know ads you see on TV have nothing to do with the network. Now if CBS execs were having public lunch every day with Donald Trump and appearing at his rallies, well, then that's going to be viewed as something else entirely. "or to have a position on LGBT Rights? (I do)" Facebook is not telling you to have a position on LGBT rights and nobody seeing ads on Facebook believes those ads are representative of Facebooks views. "Do you see how easy it is to flip your conceit right on its head with such an absolutist demand?" There's nothing either conceited or absolutist about my 'demand', in fact, it's fairly standard across most major corporations. If you're an exec and you start appearing at Trump rallies, and it might upset/offend your customers, you're going to get fired for cause right away. And rightly so. Nobody cares that much who you make donations to, or are friends with, or have dinner with. But public endorsements are that: public endorsements, and if you represent the company, then you have to check your behaviour. The exec at Facebook must be thick to think that a national appearance in front of millions during one of the biggest political nuclear wars of our generation was going to be 'ok'.