4 ms·

Elliot Schrage on Definers

35 points by imartin2k 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mobileexpert 8y ago
I read more into this being a Thanksgiving news dump than any particularly scandalous details. Facebook is embarrassed by what many orgs would consider routine corporate communications practices. This is positive that they care about their brand and reputation at a higher level than your local closely held global conglomerate.
- Latteland 8y ago
  No. Reputable corporations don't hire pr firms that claim the people against them are some kind of Jewish conspiracy. They might look for weaknesses in their competitors but that very different.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nemild 8y ago
> This explanation serves to protect Zuckerberg and Sandberg from additional blame, even as Sandberg strives to show she’s not passing the buck by noting “I want to be clear that I oversee our Comms team and take full responsibility for their work and the PR firms who work with us.” > Schrage’s defense of his bosses provides additional cover for Zuckerberg’s comments from a CNN interview that ran tonight in which he said he won’t step down as Facebook’s chairman and hopes to continue working alongside Sandberg for decades to come. The memo could have been aimed at quieting internal unrest about Facebook’s chief lobbyist Joel Kaplan. His ties to the GOP, support for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and involvement with Facebook’s latest PR troubles had led some employees to question his employment. Now Facebook has someone else to take the heat. > Schrage is effectively jumping on the grenade here. https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/20/schrage-definers/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/20/schrage-definers/ For those interested, I did my own reflection into Facebook. Inside the Bubble at Facebook: https://www.nemil.com/tdf/part1-employees.html https://www.nemil.com/tdf/part1-employees.html
- TrainedMonkey 8y ago
  I think the analogy of Schrage jumping on the grenade it apt. Here is the quote from the linked article where he explicitly takes all of the blame: > Who knew about this work, and who signed off on it? >> Responsibility for these decisions rests with leadership of the Communications team. That’s me. Mark and Sheryl relied on me to manage this without controversy.
  - nighthawk1 8y ago
    Like a pressure release valve for Mark and Sheryl. I do think the pressure for Mark to step aside will grow stronger in the coming year. Even though the class structure prevents a hostile removal, the social pressure will be substantial.
  - bertil 8y ago
    The analogy is very apt but I don’t think him presenting it that way is disingenuous: both Mark & Sheryl have a lot to handle and couldn’t possibly be involved in those decisions, not until it’s on the front page of the NYTimes. I’m not sure that Schrage would be able to pick it up either (as he points out): it was very likely only raised to him as a problem, possibly only after the Times published. Schrage’s decision would at most to admit to it publicly and pro-actively or not, and when.
panarky 8y ago
The quantity of doublespeak is off the charts. "Many of you have raised questions" (our employees are disgusted, ashamed, and close to open revolt) "We’ve been looking into this" (as if nobody at FB knew what they'd done until the NYT story dropped) "diversify our DC advisors after the election" (kowtow to the same ultra right wing forces who corrupted our platform to begin with) "Like many companies" (everybody's doing it, deflect blame and accountability) "want government to regulate us" (insist that FB clean up the catastrophe it created) "became particularly acute in September 2017 after we released details of Russian interference" (after the public learned that we'd given our users data to Cambridge Analytica without consent) And that's just the first six sentences. Just more "Delay, Deny and Deflect" https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-russia-election-racism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-...
bertil 8y ago
For what it’s worth, that tone ——rather formal, precise, factual and willing to address one’s responsibility head-on, in this case, being fired, once the case has been made—— is the closest that I’ve seen publicly from many internal notes. I find it ironic because I’ve always assumed that Schrage was the one preventing those notes and their tone from being shared more publicly. Mark’s more recent note [1] too: the length, the speculative tone not precise in their detail, but clear in their vision, all that is quite representative of notes that comes out of certain key teams (typically Core Data science & Research). I’m happy those come out more. It’s also ironic because you would typically be asked to summarize those for a notoriously attention-constrained executive. [1]: https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-blueprint-for-content-governance-and-enforcement/10156443129621634/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-blueprint-f...
- bertil 8y ago
  > Many people on the Communications team feel under attack from the press and even from their colleagues. I’m deeply disappointed that so much internal discussion and finger pointing has become public. That’s a clear internal reference: Friday’s All Hands and comments on related posts. This and the comment from Sheryl (including the explicit “All Hands”) make it sound like both were copy-pasted from the internal discussion forum (a.k.a. Workplace). Those two sentences are text-book Schrage. Any other executive at the company would welcome the feedback; remind people that their colleagues are human and to stay civil; encourage people to keep pushing back, but remember that PR is hard for a reason. Schrage just… that. Anyone else would also probably have edited that section to mention that it’s good that the press keeps us honest, democracy needs uncomfortable conversation. One thing that will never be excused though is “much internal discussion and finger pointing has become public”. Everyone would agree this is not acceptable. Employees are welcome to (politely) rip a new one to any executive if they don’t like something, but going to the press, no matter how small or how bad… I don’t remember any quote in the NYTimes, but that person will have a very bad time, even if it is the last thing Schrage does. > Mark and Sheryl have also asked Nick Clegg to review all our work with communications consultants and propose principles and management processes to guide the team’s work going forward. If this is an internal post, that sentence is very clearly missing a “and myself”. This is clear shade, not surprising for Schrage internally, and uncharacteristic for the company. I’m not confident he’s happy with Clegg.
ccnafr 8y ago
Nothing says transparency like dumping a condemning press release before a national holiday
- tqi 8y ago
  When would the most transparent time have been?
  - iscrewyou 8y ago
    When the story broke? Instead Mark got on the phone and rambled about bad press and apologized...again. For a company that boasts itself on moving fast doesn’t really know what speed to operate at anymore
    - Latteland 8y ago
      It was all a big unfair smear campaign, they said, of the NY times article. Oops, "we take it back" they say now.
vthallam 8y ago
> It’s not about Definers. It is about us, not them. Lol. I mean FB stopped working with them only after they were under scrutiny. Pure damage control
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

35 points by imartin2k 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

I read more into this being a Thanksgiving news dump than any particularly scandalous details. Facebook is embarrassed by what many orgs would consider routine corporate communications practices. This is positive that they care about their brand and reputation at a higher level than your local closely held global conglomerate.

Latteland 8y ago
No. Reputable corporations don't hire pr firms that claim the people against them are some kind of Jewish conspiracy. They might look for weaknesses in their competitors but that very different.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

nemild 8y ago

> This explanation serves to protect Zuckerberg and Sandberg from additional blame, even as Sandberg strives to show she’s not passing the buck by noting “I want to be clear that I oversee our Comms team and take full responsibility for their work and the PR firms who work with us.” > Schrage’s defense of his bosses provides additional cover for Zuckerberg’s comments from a CNN interview that ran tonight in which he said he won’t step down as Facebook’s chairman and hopes to continue working alongside Sandberg for decades to come. The memo could have been aimed at quieting internal unrest about Facebook’s chief lobbyist Joel Kaplan. His ties to the GOP, support for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and involvement with Facebook’s latest PR troubles had led some employees to question his employment. Now Facebook has someone else to take the heat. > Schrage is effectively jumping on the grenade here. https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/20/schrage-definers/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/20/schrage-definers/ For those interested, I did my own reflection into Facebook. Inside the Bubble at Facebook: https://www.nemil.com/tdf/part1-employees.html https://www.nemil.com/tdf/part1-employees.html

TrainedMonkey 8y ago
I think the analogy of Schrage jumping on the grenade it apt. Here is the quote from the linked article where he explicitly takes all of the blame: > Who knew about this work, and who signed off on it? >> Responsibility for these decisions rests with leadership of the Communications team. That’s me. Mark and Sheryl relied on me to manage this without controversy.
- nighthawk1 8y ago
  Like a pressure release valve for Mark and Sheryl. I do think the pressure for Mark to step aside will grow stronger in the coming year. Even though the class structure prevents a hostile removal, the social pressure will be substantial.
- bertil 8y ago
  The analogy is very apt but I don’t think him presenting it that way is disingenuous: both Mark & Sheryl have a lot to handle and couldn’t possibly be involved in those decisions, not until it’s on the front page of the NYTimes. I’m not sure that Schrage would be able to pick it up either (as he points out): it was very likely only raised to him as a problem, possibly only after the Times published. Schrage’s decision would at most to admit to it publicly and pro-actively or not, and when.

panarky 8y ago

The quantity of doublespeak is off the charts. "Many of you have raised questions" (our employees are disgusted, ashamed, and close to open revolt) "We’ve been looking into this" (as if nobody at FB knew what they'd done until the NYT story dropped) "diversify our DC advisors after the election" (kowtow to the same ultra right wing forces who corrupted our platform to begin with) "Like many companies" (everybody's doing it, deflect blame and accountability) "want government to regulate us" (insist that FB clean up the catastrophe it created) "became particularly acute in September 2017 after we released details of Russian interference" (after the public learned that we'd given our users data to Cambridge Analytica without consent) And that's just the first six sentences. Just more "Delay, Deny and Deflect" https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-russia-election-racism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-...

bertil 8y ago

For what it’s worth, that tone ——rather formal, precise, factual and willing to address one’s responsibility head-on, in this case, being fired, once the case has been made—— is the closest that I’ve seen publicly from many internal notes. I find it ironic because I’ve always assumed that Schrage was the one preventing those notes and their tone from being shared more publicly. Mark’s more recent note [1] too: the length, the speculative tone not precise in their detail, but clear in their vision, all that is quite representative of notes that comes out of certain key teams (typically Core Data science & Research). I’m happy those come out more. It’s also ironic because you would typically be asked to summarize those for a notoriously attention-constrained executive. [1]: https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-blueprint-for-content-governance-and-enforcement/10156443129621634/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-blueprint-f...

bertil 8y ago
> Many people on the Communications team feel under attack from the press and even from their colleagues. I’m deeply disappointed that so much internal discussion and finger pointing has become public. That’s a clear internal reference: Friday’s All Hands and comments on related posts. This and the comment from Sheryl (including the explicit “All Hands”) make it sound like both were copy-pasted from the internal discussion forum (a.k.a. Workplace). Those two sentences are text-book Schrage. Any other executive at the company would welcome the feedback; remind people that their colleagues are human and to stay civil; encourage people to keep pushing back, but remember that PR is hard for a reason. Schrage just… that. Anyone else would also probably have edited that section to mention that it’s good that the press keeps us honest, democracy needs uncomfortable conversation. One thing that will never be excused though is “much internal discussion and finger pointing has become public”. Everyone would agree this is not acceptable. Employees are welcome to (politely) rip a new one to any executive if they don’t like something, but going to the press, no matter how small or how bad… I don’t remember any quote in the NYTimes, but that person will have a very bad time, even if it is the last thing Schrage does. > Mark and Sheryl have also asked Nick Clegg to review all our work with communications consultants and propose principles and management processes to guide the team’s work going forward. If this is an internal post, that sentence is very clearly missing a “and myself”. This is clear shade, not surprising for Schrage internally, and uncharacteristic for the company. I’m not confident he’s happy with Clegg.

ccnafr 8y ago

Nothing says transparency like dumping a condemning press release before a national holiday

tqi 8y ago
When would the most transparent time have been?
- iscrewyou 8y ago
  When the story broke? Instead Mark got on the phone and rambled about bad press and apologized...again. For a company that boasts itself on moving fast doesn’t really know what speed to operate at anymore
  - Latteland 8y ago
    It was all a big unfair smear campaign, they said, of the NY times article. Oops, "we take it back" they say now.

vthallam 8y ago

> It’s not about Definers. It is about us, not them. Lol. I mean FB stopped working with them only after they were under scrutiny. Pure damage control

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]