3 ms·
Why is that laughable? If the company wants to be receptive to its critics isn't it reasonable for them to create such a role?
by srj 6y ago
Why is that laughable? If the company wants to be receptive to its critics isn't it reasonable for them to create such a role?
- gisely 6y agoBut of course! Every company should have a VP of Integrity, especially Facebook. Creating the impression of trustworthiness while profiting from lies is important at any company. At Facebook it’s the core business.
- tmalsburg2 6y agoIntegrity should be woven into the fabric of a company's culture. It can't possibly be a role. Making it a role looks like window-dressing and effectively an empty gesture.
- blaser-waffle 6y agoBeing receptive and responsive to critics is a function of marketing. And that's what this is -- marketing. Further more just because the role exists doesn't mean it matters. My Org has all sorts of diversity and sustainability managers, and their relevance ends the moment business decisions come into play.
- dredmorbius 6y agoFcebook's record to date is such that it has all but no credibility on this account. This gives it virtually no room for effective action. Partners have walked from billions of dollars in shares, its former concience, Alex Stamos, quit after being repeatedly blocked, stymied, subverted, undermined, or backstabbed. And the very label "VP of Integrity" reads as so perfectly Orwellian and ironic that the position negates itself. Without an ability to fully rope in Zuck directly it is every bit as toothless as it sounds.