9 ms·

Why Did Facebook Fire Palmer Luckey? It Had Something to Do With Trump

88 points by kyleblarson 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nemothekid 8y ago
The editorialized headline is strange. Luckey is not the first facebook figure to publicly support Trump - Thiel is. WSJ chooses to frame this as "FB is left learning, and they didn't like Luckey", but that doesn't explain why Thiel has been largely immune. The more likely cause is, Luckey (aka NimbleRichMan) was known to fund facebook groups that spread disinformation, an issue that FB is struggling with majorly right now. It doesn't help your cause when one of your highest profile exec if pouring more fuel in the fire. If he was really fired for supporting Trump I'd imagine there would be some legal grounds for Palmer to sue on. However, WSJ does a disservice here and I'm looking forward to when Cruz cites this article as evidence for his base that the coastal elite boogeyman is out to get them.
- adamnemecek 8y ago
  > but that doesn't explain why Thiel has been largely immune. He has more clout. Also I think he’s sold all his fb stock.
  - nemothekid 8y ago
    FWIW, he is still on the board. I don't think he has sold his stock.
    - adventured 8y ago
      Thiel has liquidated nearly all of his FB stock. He appears to own a mere ~$8.7m worth of shares, basically a token sum likely retained because he's on the board. Nov 2017: "Thiel, who is a member of Facebook’s board had already sold more than $1 billion worth of its stock before the filing made on Tuesday. It said he had sold another 160,805 shares for about $29 million, leaving his holdings at 59,913 Class A shares in the company" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-stake/peter-thiel-sells-most-of-remaining-facebook-stake-idUSKBN1DM2BQ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-stake/peter-thie...
TomK32 8y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75SEy1qu71I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75SEy1qu71I
phren0logy 8y ago
I can’t read the whole article due to the pay wall, but it was my impression that his firing had less to do with the fact that he supported Trump than the ways he went about showing his support. For example, donating money to organizations that were pretty clearly dedicated to trolling and antagonizing using misinformation.
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  According to this [0], it looks like disinformation campaigns, which is exactly what Facebook needs to not be doing. I’m not surprised he was fired for it. [0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/palmer-luckey-the-facebook-near-billionaire-secretly-funding-trumps-meme-machine https://www.thedailybeast.com/palmer-luckey-the-facebook-nea...
  - claydavisss 8y ago
    why does Facebook have an obligation to define "disinformation"? This is thought policing and nothing more. If he had supported liberal platforms he would be celebrated
    - JamisonM 8y ago
      Facebook has an obligation to define disinformation in the same way an unregulated food processing plant would have an obligation to define sanitary. These should be just basic moral standards that any participant in society should be held to.
- max_ 8y ago
  For the full article, see https://outline.com/asW8ja https://outline.com/asW8ja
- claydavisss 8y ago
  so basically for holding views that weren't those of Sheryl Sandberg
- randyrand 8y ago
Cyclone_ 8y ago
Curious what the legality of this sort of thing would be, can you really fire someone for political preference?
- adrr 8y ago
  Political preference isn't a protected class at the federal level. I don't know about the state level.
- lwansbrough 8y ago
  Canadian but I believe it comes down to whether or not your state has “at will” employment or not - which is basically: it’s my company so I can fire you for whatever I want. I don’t believe California is an at-will employement state.
  - Cyclone_ 8y ago
    I think technically all states are "at will", some just have a few more protections than others do.
    - wnoise 8y ago
      Montana is the only exception.
  - cperciva 8y ago
    “at will” employment [...] it’s my company so I can fire you for whatever I want I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that "at will" employment allows an employer to fire a worker for no reason (just like an employee can decide to quit without providing a reason) but not for any reason. In particular, you can't fire someone for being black, for being pregnant, for refusing to do something illegal, etc. This is why there is common advice of "don't tell people why you're firing them" -- as soon as you give an explanation, there's a risk that your words could be twisted into implying that you fired them for a bad (i.e., illegal) reason rather than simply for no reason.
    - 8y ago
nabla9 8y ago
>Executives from Facebook, Twitter Inc. and Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc., have had to answer questions from lawmakers about potential bias in their treatment of conservative viewpoints. If the lawmakers accept refusing customers based on their sexuality, I don't think they can't object against "No Trump Supporters" into executive positions policy either. Executives represent the company in a way that normal workers don't. There is obviously line somewhere in the sand, but it's different for different people in different issues. Conservatives should not try to argue that that that kind of discrimination should not exist. They should argue on principles and map out principles.
- muro 8y ago
  So yours and your employer's political views now need to be in sync? Edit: posted to wrong comment, should have been above.
  - nabla9 8y ago
    No. That was not what I wrote. In my opinion differing political opinions should be tolerated as much as possible.
- linuxhansl 8y ago
  Personally I think both practices are equally bad - regardless of anybody's political leanings - and that one does not justify the other. (I think that's what you're saying anyway, just wanted to add my $0.02)
  - nabla9 8y ago
    > regardless of anybody's political leanings Are you sure? Start from the most extreme political positions and walk back from there.
    - linuxhansl 8y ago
      I was pointing to an ideal, not to the current status quo :)
diazon 8y ago
It looks like the same thing Mozilla did to Brendan Eich, fired after being caught donating to a conservative movement, so this is hardly a first.
RickJWagner 8y ago
Absolutely chilling. Think about Harvey Weinstein-- Hollywood super-mogul, pre-eminent power player, prominent supporter of ONE political party. Weinstein was a vicious sexual predator for decades. He was able to operate because he used fear and intimidation, especially fear of employment prospects. Do you ever wonder why Hollywood is almost exclusively left-leaning? Why the awards ceremonies have only left-leaning outbursts? It is easy to imagine the same thing happening in tech. This is not good, not good at all.
- pmoriarty 8y ago
  If Hollywood is so leftist, why are they such capitalists? Why aren't Hollywood studios worker-owned cooperatives? Why aren't Hollywood elites advocating for getting rid of private property and giving power to the workers, rather than buying up mansions, yachts, and private jets for themselves? Private property and capitalism is alive and well in Hollywood, and both are about as anit-left as you can get.
  - RickJWagner 8y ago
    I agree with you, mostly. All the items you cite do align more closely with the right side of the American political spectrum, not the left. Yet the messaging that comes out of Hollywood is overwhelmingly leftist. You can't watch an awards show without seeing several 'spontaneous' outbursts against Republican politicians, in favor of left-leaning policies, etc. Why is this? Why do these people look like typical Republicans but speak like rabid Democrats? My theory (as explained above, and bolstered by testimony from Allen, Woods, etc.) is that money, job prospects, and awards are used as incentives to publicly tow the party line (without regard to the person's actual opinions.) We know these tactics were used to great avail in the Weinstein playbook. It's why none of his victims came forward-- they were mostly starlets that wanted to work. Of course I'm not certain. Does anybody have a better theory for why those people seem to 'live' right-side, but 'shout out' left-side?
- danso 8y ago
  > Do you ever wonder why Hollywood is almost exclusively left-leaning? Why the awards ceremonies have only left-leaning outbursts? OK I give up, why?
eugeniub 8y ago
> Mr. Luckey’s fallout with Facebook began in September 2016, when the Daily Beast revealed his $10,000 donation to NimbleAmerica, a pro-Trump group that paid for advertising mocking Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2016 election. At least one billboard paid for by the group featured a picture of Mrs. Clinton and the phrase “Too Big to Jail.” > In one post on a Reddit chain dedicated to supporting Mr. Trump, the author, called “NimbleRichMan,” said he was donating to the group so it could spread unflattering memes about Mrs. Clinton. > Mr. Luckey’s donation and the perception he might be leading a pro-Trump online campaign ignited a firestorm. So, contrary to the title of this HN submission, the firing was not because he supported Trump, but because he was donating to, and possibly running, a political organization dedicated to trolling people online — according to this WSJ article. > Then Mr. Luckey and his lawyer negotiated a payout of at least $100 million Poor feller.
Kaveren 8y ago
Employers should be able to fire employees for their political beliefs no matter what they are. It's not remotely on the same level as race or gender or anything of the like; political beliefs are chosen and based on ideology. Laws against these firings are a government overstep.
- cronix 8y ago
  > It's not remotely on the same level as race or gender or anything of the like > political beliefs are chosen and based on ideology Aren't religious beliefs pretty darn similar to political ones, based on that?
  - wnoise 8y ago
    Yes, they are, which is as much as argument that religious beliefs are too protected as it is an argument that political beliefs are not protected enough.
- d0gsg0w00f 8y ago
  Who within the company makes that decision? What if a conservative white manager fires a liberal black employee citing that they were making other employees uncomfortable with their political diatribes?
  - Kaveren 8y ago
    That would be the employer's decision. If you are fired for these sorts of reasons, you should be more than welcome to tell your story to people. Perhaps it will hurt the company's business.
  - danso 8y ago
    Er...then the employee is fired, if the employer is in a state that has no protections for political speech at work. I don’t understand this question. Is it your belief that white managers never fire black employees?
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
cperciva 8y ago
A buried lede: Mr. Luckey has told people he did vote for Mr. Johnson, but only to avoid having his credibility questioned if he was asked about the issue under oath in unrelated litigation. Surely you can't compel someone to testify under oath about their constitutionally-protected secret ballot?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeatwork 8y ago
  There's no such concept in the Constitution of the United States
cft 8y ago
Text without paywall: https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/TDJNDN_20181111592/why-did-facebook-fire-a-top-executive-hint-it-had-something-to-do-with-trump.html https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/TDJNDN_2018111159...
- wyclif 8y ago
  Why was this story flagged? As far as I can tell, the WSJ is the only news org that covered this story.
AJ007 8y ago
Politically and regulatorily it is not a good sign when both sides of the political spectrum are peddling the story that your company is a bad actor. The irony is significant that while being hated and vilinized by the left, America’s adtech duopoly was assembled and appears to continue to be run by people who would largely identify as the liberal left.
danso 8y ago
Interesting article. I had always assumed that Luckey was forced to resign because of his “NimbleRichMan” charade, a subterfuge so cringey and shady that it was r/the_donald’s own version of the Digg revolt [0], which to me would be grounds for firing because of all the FEC problems it could get him and Facebook into. And then he lied about not being NimbleRichMan [1], which would seem to seal the deal for firing. But the WSJ article says FB’s investigation afterward that Luckey did not violate any internal policies. It still makes more sense to me that they fired Luckey for being a reckless liability. But they had the chance to say so and apparently didn’t. 0. https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/535jkk/about_what_happened_tonight/?st=JODF17RJ&sh=69ed43b9 https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/535jkk/about_wh... 1. https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-palmer-luckey-oculus-rift-lie-nimble-america/ https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-palmer-luckey-oculus-rift...
ColanR 8y ago
This is a legitimate article from a good source about a major tech company. The only obvious reason for flagging is that it makes a conservative guy the victim of a liberal/progressive company. Why was it flagged?
tessi3r 8y ago
Ofc this got flagged...
tdurden 8y ago
I am curious why this was flagged?
- DanBC 8y ago
  I'm guessing for fucking about with the title or for being tediously political. The article has "Why Did Facebook Fire a Top Executive? Hint: It Had Something to Do With Trump".
  - wyclif 8y ago
    But if you posted the article without editing the title, as per HN guidelines, it's still gonna get flagged. "Tediously political" is subjective. If the person fired had been a leftist, I doubt this story would have been flagged.
alphabettsy 8y ago
They don’t seem to get into much of the other controversy about him. There’s an argument thhat this publicity also affected Oculus sales and public image. The title is heavily editorialized which I suspect is a big reason this is flagged. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/business/oculus-palmer-luckey-new-start-up.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/business/oculus-palmer-lu... https://variety.com/2016/digital/news/oculus-backlash-palmer-luckey-alt-right-1201869275/ https://variety.com/2016/digital/news/oculus-backlash-palmer... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/how-your-oculus-rift-is-secretly-funding-donald-trumps-racist-meme-wars/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/how-your-oculus-...
- dang 8y ago
  The submitted title was "Facebook Fired Palmer Luckey Because He Supported Trump". That indeed broke the site guidelines, which ask: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." Submitters: Changes like that have strong degrading effects on discussion, so please don't do that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
drivingmenuts 8y ago
I thought it was because he was financing trolls and when that got out, it was affecting Oculus.
Yetanfou 8y ago
Remember the WordPerfect company? Based in Orem, Utah, founded by two Mormons (Bruce Bastian and Alan Ashton). Imagine the uproar if that company had fired people just because they happened to attend another church. Quite a lot more uproar in fact than that which is now caused by Facebook firing someone because he happens to attend a different political party. It does not take much imagination to realise the uproar would also have been markedly higher if the stakes were turned in that a 'right-wing' company had fired someone because of his 'left-wing' tendencies. All animals are equal or so it is said, but some are a lot more noisy than the others.
- danso 8y ago
  It would be outright illegal for them to fire people for attending a different church. Religion is explicitly protected by federal employment law: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

88 points by kyleblarson 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

The editorialized headline is strange. Luckey is not the first facebook figure to publicly support Trump - Thiel is. WSJ chooses to frame this as "FB is left learning, and they didn't like Luckey", but that doesn't explain why Thiel has been largely immune. The more likely cause is, Luckey (aka NimbleRichMan) was known to fund facebook groups that spread disinformation, an issue that FB is struggling with majorly right now. It doesn't help your cause when one of your highest profile exec if pouring more fuel in the fire. If he was really fired for supporting Trump I'd imagine there would be some legal grounds for Palmer to sue on. However, WSJ does a disservice here and I'm looking forward to when Cruz cites this article as evidence for his base that the coastal elite boogeyman is out to get them.

adamnemecek 8y ago
> but that doesn't explain why Thiel has been largely immune. He has more clout. Also I think he’s sold all his fb stock.
- nemothekid 8y ago
  FWIW, he is still on the board. I don't think he has sold his stock.
  - adventured 8y ago
    Thiel has liquidated nearly all of his FB stock. He appears to own a mere ~$8.7m worth of shares, basically a token sum likely retained because he's on the board. Nov 2017: "Thiel, who is a member of Facebook’s board had already sold more than $1 billion worth of its stock before the filing made on Tuesday. It said he had sold another 160,805 shares for about $29 million, leaving his holdings at 59,913 Class A shares in the company" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-stake/peter-thiel-sells-most-of-remaining-facebook-stake-idUSKBN1DM2BQ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-stake/peter-thie...

TomK32 8y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75SEy1qu71I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75SEy1qu71I

phren0logy 8y ago

I can’t read the whole article due to the pay wall, but it was my impression that his firing had less to do with the fact that he supported Trump than the ways he went about showing his support. For example, donating money to organizations that were pretty clearly dedicated to trolling and antagonizing using misinformation.

stochastic_monk 8y ago
According to this [0], it looks like disinformation campaigns, which is exactly what Facebook needs to not be doing. I’m not surprised he was fired for it. [0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/palmer-luckey-the-facebook-near-billionaire-secretly-funding-trumps-meme-machine https://www.thedailybeast.com/palmer-luckey-the-facebook-nea...
- claydavisss 8y ago
  why does Facebook have an obligation to define "disinformation"? This is thought policing and nothing more. If he had supported liberal platforms he would be celebrated
  - JamisonM 8y ago
    Facebook has an obligation to define disinformation in the same way an unregulated food processing plant would have an obligation to define sanitary. These should be just basic moral standards that any participant in society should be held to.
max_ 8y ago
For the full article, see https://outline.com/asW8ja https://outline.com/asW8ja
claydavisss 8y ago
so basically for holding views that weren't those of Sheryl Sandberg
randyrand 8y ago

Cyclone_ 8y ago

Curious what the legality of this sort of thing would be, can you really fire someone for political preference?

adrr 8y ago
Political preference isn't a protected class at the federal level. I don't know about the state level.
lwansbrough 8y ago
Canadian but I believe it comes down to whether or not your state has “at will” employment or not - which is basically: it’s my company so I can fire you for whatever I want. I don’t believe California is an at-will employement state.
- Cyclone_ 8y ago
  I think technically all states are "at will", some just have a few more protections than others do.
  - wnoise 8y ago
    Montana is the only exception.
- cperciva 8y ago
  “at will” employment [...] it’s my company so I can fire you for whatever I want I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that "at will" employment allows an employer to fire a worker for no reason (just like an employee can decide to quit without providing a reason) but not for any reason. In particular, you can't fire someone for being black, for being pregnant, for refusing to do something illegal, etc. This is why there is common advice of "don't tell people why you're firing them" -- as soon as you give an explanation, there's a risk that your words could be twisted into implying that you fired them for a bad (i.e., illegal) reason rather than simply for no reason.
  - 8y ago

nabla9 8y ago

>Executives from Facebook, Twitter Inc. and Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc., have had to answer questions from lawmakers about potential bias in their treatment of conservative viewpoints. If the lawmakers accept refusing customers based on their sexuality, I don't think they can't object against "No Trump Supporters" into executive positions policy either. Executives represent the company in a way that normal workers don't. There is obviously line somewhere in the sand, but it's different for different people in different issues. Conservatives should not try to argue that that that kind of discrimination should not exist. They should argue on principles and map out principles.

muro 8y ago
So yours and your employer's political views now need to be in sync? Edit: posted to wrong comment, should have been above.
- nabla9 8y ago
  No. That was not what I wrote. In my opinion differing political opinions should be tolerated as much as possible.
linuxhansl 8y ago
Personally I think both practices are equally bad - regardless of anybody's political leanings - and that one does not justify the other. (I think that's what you're saying anyway, just wanted to add my $0.02)
- nabla9 8y ago
  > regardless of anybody's political leanings Are you sure? Start from the most extreme political positions and walk back from there.
  - linuxhansl 8y ago
    I was pointing to an ideal, not to the current status quo :)

diazon 8y ago

It looks like the same thing Mozilla did to Brendan Eich, fired after being caught donating to a conservative movement, so this is hardly a first.

RickJWagner 8y ago

Absolutely chilling. Think about Harvey Weinstein-- Hollywood super-mogul, pre-eminent power player, prominent supporter of ONE political party. Weinstein was a vicious sexual predator for decades. He was able to operate because he used fear and intimidation, especially fear of employment prospects. Do you ever wonder why Hollywood is almost exclusively left-leaning? Why the awards ceremonies have only left-leaning outbursts? It is easy to imagine the same thing happening in tech. This is not good, not good at all.

pmoriarty 8y ago
If Hollywood is so leftist, why are they such capitalists? Why aren't Hollywood studios worker-owned cooperatives? Why aren't Hollywood elites advocating for getting rid of private property and giving power to the workers, rather than buying up mansions, yachts, and private jets for themselves? Private property and capitalism is alive and well in Hollywood, and both are about as anit-left as you can get.
- RickJWagner 8y ago
  I agree with you, mostly. All the items you cite do align more closely with the right side of the American political spectrum, not the left. Yet the messaging that comes out of Hollywood is overwhelmingly leftist. You can't watch an awards show without seeing several 'spontaneous' outbursts against Republican politicians, in favor of left-leaning policies, etc. Why is this? Why do these people look like typical Republicans but speak like rabid Democrats? My theory (as explained above, and bolstered by testimony from Allen, Woods, etc.) is that money, job prospects, and awards are used as incentives to publicly tow the party line (without regard to the person's actual opinions.) We know these tactics were used to great avail in the Weinstein playbook. It's why none of his victims came forward-- they were mostly starlets that wanted to work. Of course I'm not certain. Does anybody have a better theory for why those people seem to 'live' right-side, but 'shout out' left-side?
danso 8y ago
> Do you ever wonder why Hollywood is almost exclusively left-leaning? Why the awards ceremonies have only left-leaning outbursts? OK I give up, why?

eugeniub 8y ago

> Mr. Luckey’s fallout with Facebook began in September 2016, when the Daily Beast revealed his $10,000 donation to NimbleAmerica, a pro-Trump group that paid for advertising mocking Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2016 election. At least one billboard paid for by the group featured a picture of Mrs. Clinton and the phrase “Too Big to Jail.” > In one post on a Reddit chain dedicated to supporting Mr. Trump, the author, called “NimbleRichMan,” said he was donating to the group so it could spread unflattering memes about Mrs. Clinton. > Mr. Luckey’s donation and the perception he might be leading a pro-Trump online campaign ignited a firestorm. So, contrary to the title of this HN submission, the firing was not because he supported Trump, but because he was donating to, and possibly running, a political organization dedicated to trolling people online — according to this WSJ article. > Then Mr. Luckey and his lawyer negotiated a payout of at least $100 million Poor feller.

Kaveren 8y ago

Employers should be able to fire employees for their political beliefs no matter what they are. It's not remotely on the same level as race or gender or anything of the like; political beliefs are chosen and based on ideology. Laws against these firings are a government overstep.

cronix 8y ago
> It's not remotely on the same level as race or gender or anything of the like > political beliefs are chosen and based on ideology Aren't religious beliefs pretty darn similar to political ones, based on that?
- wnoise 8y ago
  Yes, they are, which is as much as argument that religious beliefs are too protected as it is an argument that political beliefs are not protected enough.
d0gsg0w00f 8y ago
Who within the company makes that decision? What if a conservative white manager fires a liberal black employee citing that they were making other employees uncomfortable with their political diatribes?
- Kaveren 8y ago
  That would be the employer's decision. If you are fired for these sorts of reasons, you should be more than welcome to tell your story to people. Perhaps it will hurt the company's business.
- danso 8y ago
  Er...then the employee is fired, if the employer is in a state that has no protections for political speech at work. I don’t understand this question. Is it your belief that white managers never fire black employees?
TeMPOraL 8y ago

cperciva 8y ago

A buried lede: Mr. Luckey has told people he did vote for Mr. Johnson, but only to avoid having his credibility questioned if he was asked about the issue under oath in unrelated litigation. Surely you can't compel someone to testify under oath about their constitutionally-protected secret ballot?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mikeatwork 8y ago
There's no such concept in the Constitution of the United States

cft 8y ago

Text without paywall: https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/TDJNDN_20181111592/why-did-facebook-fire-a-top-executive-hint-it-had-something-to-do-with-trump.html https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/TDJNDN_2018111159...

wyclif 8y ago
Why was this story flagged? As far as I can tell, the WSJ is the only news org that covered this story.

AJ007 8y ago

Politically and regulatorily it is not a good sign when both sides of the political spectrum are peddling the story that your company is a bad actor. The irony is significant that while being hated and vilinized by the left, America’s adtech duopoly was assembled and appears to continue to be run by people who would largely identify as the liberal left.

danso 8y ago

Interesting article. I had always assumed that Luckey was forced to resign because of his “NimbleRichMan” charade, a subterfuge so cringey and shady that it was r/the_donald’s own version of the Digg revolt [0], which to me would be grounds for firing because of all the FEC problems it could get him and Facebook into. And then he lied about not being NimbleRichMan [1], which would seem to seal the deal for firing. But the WSJ article says FB’s investigation afterward that Luckey did not violate any internal policies. It still makes more sense to me that they fired Luckey for being a reckless liability. But they had the chance to say so and apparently didn’t. 0. https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/535jkk/about_what_happened_tonight/?st=JODF17RJ&sh=69ed43b9 https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/535jkk/about_wh... 1. https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-palmer-luckey-oculus-rift-lie-nimble-america/ https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-palmer-luckey-oculus-rift...

ColanR 8y ago

This is a legitimate article from a good source about a major tech company. The only obvious reason for flagging is that it makes a conservative guy the victim of a liberal/progressive company. Why was it flagged?

tessi3r 8y ago

Ofc this got flagged...

tdurden 8y ago

I am curious why this was flagged?

DanBC 8y ago
I'm guessing for fucking about with the title or for being tediously political. The article has "Why Did Facebook Fire a Top Executive? Hint: It Had Something to Do With Trump".
- wyclif 8y ago
  But if you posted the article without editing the title, as per HN guidelines, it's still gonna get flagged. "Tediously political" is subjective. If the person fired had been a leftist, I doubt this story would have been flagged.

alphabettsy 8y ago

They don’t seem to get into much of the other controversy about him. There’s an argument thhat this publicity also affected Oculus sales and public image. The title is heavily editorialized which I suspect is a big reason this is flagged. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/business/oculus-palmer-luckey-new-start-up.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/business/oculus-palmer-lu... https://variety.com/2016/digital/news/oculus-backlash-palmer-luckey-alt-right-1201869275/ https://variety.com/2016/digital/news/oculus-backlash-palmer... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/how-your-oculus-rift-is-secretly-funding-donald-trumps-racist-meme-wars/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/how-your-oculus-...

dang 8y ago
The submitted title was "Facebook Fired Palmer Luckey Because He Supported Trump". That indeed broke the site guidelines, which ask: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." Submitters: Changes like that have strong degrading effects on discussion, so please don't do that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

drivingmenuts 8y ago

I thought it was because he was financing trolls and when that got out, it was affecting Oculus.

Yetanfou 8y ago

Remember the WordPerfect company? Based in Orem, Utah, founded by two Mormons (Bruce Bastian and Alan Ashton). Imagine the uproar if that company had fired people just because they happened to attend another church. Quite a lot more uproar in fact than that which is now caused by Facebook firing someone because he happens to attend a different political party. It does not take much imagination to realise the uproar would also have been markedly higher if the stakes were turned in that a 'right-wing' company had fired someone because of his 'left-wing' tendencies. All animals are equal or so it is said, but some are a lot more noisy than the others.

danso 8y ago
It would be outright illegal for them to fire people for attending a different church. Religion is explicitly protected by federal employment law: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm