3 ms·

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 anoth

by 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'.
- stale2002 8y ago
  > 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. Well apparently Facebook disagrees with you, and they are perfectly happy to have execs do politically controversial things. It is Facebook's right to be as political as they want, and apparently their choice is to allow their employees to do exactly any of these things. I'd also like to point out that in the state of California, firing employees because of out of work political activities is literally illegal. So you should be very careful about suggesting that companies engage in what may be illegal discrimination in the state of California. (Perhaps the rules are a bit different for execs, but still, be careful with your line of thinking)
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Of course Facebook can allow it's staff to do this, nobody is doubting that. But Facebook is justifying post ad hoc here, Sandberg said it was obviously a mistake. He would have been told 'no' if he were to have asked. Which is probably why he didn't. See my comment above about 'California's laws'. You're misunderstanding the roles of executives if you think they are going to appear in highly controversial political ads and then get some kind of legal protection, frankly, the same would apply for employees. Legal protection doesn't matter anyhow - if you're going to bring harm to the company, why would the company employ you? This is not about 'voting' or 'donations' it's about 'public support / appearances' etc.. Executives are normally not this out of touch. Go ahead and appear in an aggressive NRA TV ad imploring that 'all teachers should be armed' and see how long you last at your job. You'll be out right away, one way or another, even as an employee. So again, nobody cares about voting, or donations, or even canvasing or merely attending rallies or whatever, but public participation i.e. TV sports, or major social media presence on some controversial issue is out of bounds, and if it brings harm to your company then you need to chose between being on that team, or your political activities.
- dvtrn 8y ago
  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. Except in California, where Facebook operates you would be taken to court quick fast and in a headspinning hurry for firing someone for appearing at a Trump rally. So for the context of this discussion, FB and how their executives seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths here, you seem to be effectively asking Facebook to break the law.

by dvtrn 8y ago

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'.

stale2002 8y ago
> 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. Well apparently Facebook disagrees with you, and they are perfectly happy to have execs do politically controversial things. It is Facebook's right to be as political as they want, and apparently their choice is to allow their employees to do exactly any of these things. I'd also like to point out that in the state of California, firing employees because of out of work political activities is literally illegal. So you should be very careful about suggesting that companies engage in what may be illegal discrimination in the state of California. (Perhaps the rules are a bit different for execs, but still, be careful with your line of thinking)
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Of course Facebook can allow it's staff to do this, nobody is doubting that. But Facebook is justifying post ad hoc here, Sandberg said it was obviously a mistake. He would have been told 'no' if he were to have asked. Which is probably why he didn't. See my comment above about 'California's laws'. You're misunderstanding the roles of executives if you think they are going to appear in highly controversial political ads and then get some kind of legal protection, frankly, the same would apply for employees. Legal protection doesn't matter anyhow - if you're going to bring harm to the company, why would the company employ you? This is not about 'voting' or 'donations' it's about 'public support / appearances' etc.. Executives are normally not this out of touch. Go ahead and appear in an aggressive NRA TV ad imploring that 'all teachers should be armed' and see how long you last at your job. You'll be out right away, one way or another, even as an employee. So again, nobody cares about voting, or donations, or even canvasing or merely attending rallies or whatever, but public participation i.e. TV sports, or major social media presence on some controversial issue is out of bounds, and if it brings harm to your company then you need to chose between being on that team, or your political activities.
dvtrn 8y ago
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. Except in California, where Facebook operates you would be taken to court quick fast and in a headspinning hurry for firing someone for appearing at a Trump rally. So for the context of this discussion, FB and how their executives seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths here, you seem to be effectively asking Facebook to break the law.