6 ms·

Puzzle me this - as an employee in the US, for a company paying well above market for your labor, with generous perks and the freedom to speak out against the e

Puzzle me this - as an employee in the US, for a company paying well above market for your labor, with generous perks and the freedom to speak out against the employer (which is likely absent in China), the response of the Chinese workforce seems rather paradoxical - criticising an accommodating work environment, which, mind you, is only possible because of freedom of speech Or, the press is out to make a mountain of a mole - most Chinese employees at Facebook are happy despite Zuks' tone against the govt.

thomasjames 7y ago
Nationalism is nationalism regardless of said nation.
- thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
  but nationalism for the chinese is particularly intense, see my comment on that below.
thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
if you want an explanation for why this is, checkout my explanation down below
mistersquid 7y ago
> the response of the Chinese workforce seems rather paradoxical - criticising an accommodatung work environment, which, mind you, is only possible because of freedom of speech You’re questioning, and implicitly criticizing, these workers for exercising their access to free speech, for complaining about an aspect of their employer’s position about their country of origin. Such an implicit critique undermines the foundations on which free speech stands. Speech is free regardless of the benefits and privileges granted to those who would speak.
- null_vector 7y ago
  You used a lot of words to say nothing at all.
- pertymcpert 7y ago
  You are doing it to a much worse extent.
- buzzerbetrayed 7y ago
  > You’re questioning, and implicitly criticizing, these workers for exercising their access to free speech, for complaining about an aspect of their employer’s position about their country of origin Why is this relevant? By that definition, any time you criticize anything someone says you are criticizing them for using free speech. There is a big difference between “I disagree with what you’re saying” and “you shouldn’t be allowed to say it”. As far as I can tell, he isn’t even hinting at the latter.
  - mistersquid 7y ago
    > There is a big difference between “I disagree with what you’re saying” and “you shouldn’t be allowed to say it”. As far as I can tell, he isn’t even hinting at the latter. The GGP is not merely saying "I disagree with what you're saying" but rather "I disagree with what you're saying because you are well-compensated (and allowed to speak freely)." (The last clause is a bizarre objection, but it is present in the GGP comment.) This is problematic because in the US, where Facebook is concerned, free speech is not granted only to the poorly-compensated but to all residents. So pointing out how well-compensated the employees are as a way of criticizing them undermines their access to free speech. It is an attempt to silence them because they enjoy privileges such as good compensation and the ability to speak freely. And to be clear: criticizing Chinese Facebook employees for complaining about the CEO's position to their country of origin because they are well-paid is an attempt to nullify their points because they are well-paid (and allowed to speak freely). The criticism doesn't address the root of the objection but instead attacks the employees (i.e. ad hominem).
- throwGuardian 7y ago
  > Speech is free regardless of the benefits and privileges granted to those who would speak. You're copiously misinterpreting my comment. Of course free speech is an inherent privilege, nay human right, that doesn't require granting from any entity/authority figure. I'm very much questioning the logic behind their angst against Zucks' opinions on China. If anything, the free flow of information, free speech without retaliation and the general upliftment by being at FB should convince them to argue FOR free speech in China. I was hoping they saw the clear correlation between freedoms, free-speech, etc as the foundation for equitable wealth creation and prosperity, which they very much have experienced at FB. I'm guessing their reaction is more visceral/emotional than logical. Most people tend to love their motherland despite it's shortcomings.
  - mistersquid 7y ago
    > You're copiously misinterpreting my comment. Hm. I don’t think I misread or misinterpreted as much as your sparing comment leaves many lines to read between. In any case, I my inference does not match your intended meaning and I appreciate your clarification. Free speech should be an inherent right. I also LOVE the idea that such employees might use this as an opportunity to advocate for free speech in their hime countries. I don’t however see such advocacy as a requirement to criticize Zuckerberg.
Spooky23 7y ago
Who's to say those employee actions are not being scrutinized by others and reported back? As the US and China implement different tit for tat policies, relatives at home can be punished for the actions of relatives abroad.
- bgee 7y ago
  I'm a Chinese national working in the US. I have never heard of this kind of punishment. Can you provide any evidence?
  - eznoonze 7y ago
    Try becoming an activist, or attend a pro-HK freedom rally in the US.
    - bgee 7y ago
      The post I replied to was specifically referring on the "employee actions". My argument was it's not reasonable to simply discard these employee's claim by somehow suggesting they are only acting because of the pressure from CCP. But the point you made is correct, activist's family could be punishment. edit: punishment -> punished
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    My post was based on recollection of this article. China detains relatives of U.S. reporters in apparent punishment for Xinjiang coverage. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-detains-relatives-of-us-reporters-in-apparent-punishment-for-xinjiang-coverage/2018/02/27/4e8d84ae-1b8c-11e8-8a2c-1a6665f59e95_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-detains-relatives... While the specific context of this was related to journalists, I would certainly take pause with respect my actions at an employer likely to bump heads and attract the attention of that government. There is an escalation of tensions, with the US and China taking hard stances on vistor visas. It's not unreasonable to be concerned about other sanctions.
deepVoid 7y ago
Freedom to speak out against the employer? There are definitely consequences. It can apparently get you fired quickly [1][2][3][4]. [1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvgn9q/do-not-discuss-the-incident-facebook-told-employee-fired-after-speaking-about-worker-suicide https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvgn9q/do-not-discuss-the... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/facebook-employee-i-was-fired-for-talking-about-colleagues-suicide.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/facebook-employee-i-was-fire... [3] https://digg.com/video/qin-chen-facebook-employee-suicide https://digg.com/video/qin-chen-facebook-employee-suicide [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...

thomasjames 7y ago

Nationalism is nationalism regardless of said nation.

thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
but nationalism for the chinese is particularly intense, see my comment on that below.

thorwasdfasdf 7y ago

if you want an explanation for why this is, checkout my explanation down below

mistersquid 7y ago

> the response of the Chinese workforce seems rather paradoxical - criticising an accommodatung work environment, which, mind you, is only possible because of freedom of speech You’re questioning, and implicitly criticizing, these workers for exercising their access to free speech, for complaining about an aspect of their employer’s position about their country of origin. Such an implicit critique undermines the foundations on which free speech stands. Speech is free regardless of the benefits and privileges granted to those who would speak.

null_vector 7y ago
You used a lot of words to say nothing at all.
pertymcpert 7y ago
You are doing it to a much worse extent.
buzzerbetrayed 7y ago
> You’re questioning, and implicitly criticizing, these workers for exercising their access to free speech, for complaining about an aspect of their employer’s position about their country of origin Why is this relevant? By that definition, any time you criticize anything someone says you are criticizing them for using free speech. There is a big difference between “I disagree with what you’re saying” and “you shouldn’t be allowed to say it”. As far as I can tell, he isn’t even hinting at the latter.
- mistersquid 7y ago
  > There is a big difference between “I disagree with what you’re saying” and “you shouldn’t be allowed to say it”. As far as I can tell, he isn’t even hinting at the latter. The GGP is not merely saying "I disagree with what you're saying" but rather "I disagree with what you're saying because you are well-compensated (and allowed to speak freely)." (The last clause is a bizarre objection, but it is present in the GGP comment.) This is problematic because in the US, where Facebook is concerned, free speech is not granted only to the poorly-compensated but to all residents. So pointing out how well-compensated the employees are as a way of criticizing them undermines their access to free speech. It is an attempt to silence them because they enjoy privileges such as good compensation and the ability to speak freely. And to be clear: criticizing Chinese Facebook employees for complaining about the CEO's position to their country of origin because they are well-paid is an attempt to nullify their points because they are well-paid (and allowed to speak freely). The criticism doesn't address the root of the objection but instead attacks the employees (i.e. ad hominem).
throwGuardian 7y ago
> Speech is free regardless of the benefits and privileges granted to those who would speak. You're copiously misinterpreting my comment. Of course free speech is an inherent privilege, nay human right, that doesn't require granting from any entity/authority figure. I'm very much questioning the logic behind their angst against Zucks' opinions on China. If anything, the free flow of information, free speech without retaliation and the general upliftment by being at FB should convince them to argue FOR free speech in China. I was hoping they saw the clear correlation between freedoms, free-speech, etc as the foundation for equitable wealth creation and prosperity, which they very much have experienced at FB. I'm guessing their reaction is more visceral/emotional than logical. Most people tend to love their motherland despite it's shortcomings.
- mistersquid 7y ago
  > You're copiously misinterpreting my comment. Hm. I don’t think I misread or misinterpreted as much as your sparing comment leaves many lines to read between. In any case, I my inference does not match your intended meaning and I appreciate your clarification. Free speech should be an inherent right. I also LOVE the idea that such employees might use this as an opportunity to advocate for free speech in their hime countries. I don’t however see such advocacy as a requirement to criticize Zuckerberg.

Spooky23 7y ago

Who's to say those employee actions are not being scrutinized by others and reported back? As the US and China implement different tit for tat policies, relatives at home can be punished for the actions of relatives abroad.

bgee 7y ago
I'm a Chinese national working in the US. I have never heard of this kind of punishment. Can you provide any evidence?
- eznoonze 7y ago
  Try becoming an activist, or attend a pro-HK freedom rally in the US.
  - bgee 7y ago
    The post I replied to was specifically referring on the "employee actions". My argument was it's not reasonable to simply discard these employee's claim by somehow suggesting they are only acting because of the pressure from CCP. But the point you made is correct, activist's family could be punishment. edit: punishment -> punished
- Spooky23 7y ago
  My post was based on recollection of this article. China detains relatives of U.S. reporters in apparent punishment for Xinjiang coverage. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-detains-relatives-of-us-reporters-in-apparent-punishment-for-xinjiang-coverage/2018/02/27/4e8d84ae-1b8c-11e8-8a2c-1a6665f59e95_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-detains-relatives... While the specific context of this was related to journalists, I would certainly take pause with respect my actions at an employer likely to bump heads and attract the attention of that government. There is an escalation of tensions, with the US and China taking hard stances on vistor visas. It's not unreasonable to be concerned about other sanctions.

deepVoid 7y ago

Freedom to speak out against the employer? There are definitely consequences. It can apparently get you fired quickly [1][2][3][4]. [1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvgn9q/do-not-discuss-the-incident-facebook-told-employee-fired-after-speaking-about-worker-suicide https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvgn9q/do-not-discuss-the... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/facebook-employee-i-was-fired-for-talking-about-colleagues-suicide.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/facebook-employee-i-was-fire... [3] https://digg.com/video/qin-chen-facebook-employee-suicide https://digg.com/video/qin-chen-facebook-employee-suicide [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...