10 ms·

> Zuckerberg’s decision was supported by the majority of the company, but that people who agreed with it were afraid to speak out for fear of appearing insensit

by elwell 6y ago

> Zuckerberg’s decision was supported by the majority of the company, but that people who agreed with it were afraid to speak out for fear of appearing insensitive I find that interesting and dangerous.

tech-historian 6y ago
It's not entirely clear how they came to that conclusion without any data to back it up. How could they know? Was there an internal survey or something? Or perhaps Facebook employees generally lean right maybe? Any FB employees here care to comment?
- elwell 6y ago
  Even if it wasn't the majority that felt that way, it's interesting to me that they felt "afraid to speak out for fear of appearing insensitive". The situation is so polarizing and dramatic, we can't hope to find an optimal solution.
- Verdex 6y ago
  Well, I don't they did this, but it's an interesting technique used for this sort of scenario. Unfortunately, I can't find a wiki article to explain it (I think it's something like the hugh-jones coin or something). Anyway, I think the idea was someone needed statistics on how many people were stealing things after some sort of event, but obviously they couldn't just ask people because who would admit to breaking the law. So what you do is you ask the question: "Are you stealing" then you have the person flip a coin out of your view. If the coin is heads then they answer honestly, but if the coin is tails, then they always answer yes. This way the person in question has plausible deniability (I didn't steal, I said that I did because the coin came up tails). Then once you have the data you just need to divide by half and maybe tweak some other parameters, but you end up with realistic data (or so the statisticians say).
  - singhrac 6y ago
    The method is called randomized response, iirc.
    - gruez 6y ago
      I think it's actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy
- Aunche 6y ago
  That was the perspective of a single Facebook employee that the reporter interviewed.
- ve55 6y ago
  I think it's a mistake to assume that anyone who doesn't want to fact-check/remove Trump's posts has to lean right politically. There's a lot of other reasons they can have. What if all of Trump's worst posts were removed, such that every potential voter reading them then has a less-aligned view of what he supports, and decides to vote for him, when they would not have had his posts not been selectively filtered? Just one of many possibilities
  - stOneskull 6y ago
    i think that the president should be able to speak to the people, and half the people want to hear it. those who don't want to hear it shouldn't block it from the others. it's jiggled into such a drama. a headache over nothing. zuck was right, about transcending the feelings, and going by principles.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      Half is a vast overestimate.
- sevreview38402 6y ago
  I’m at FB (throwaway account for good measure). It’s impossible to tell, especially working remotely. It’s not like you can ask these kinds of questions over Workplace chat unless you’re close with other team members. But the perspective that there are people who agree with Zuck’s decision and aren’t speaking up is valid. I’m one of them despite generally agreeing with BLM _and_ being a person of color. You have people changing their profile pics to BLM icons which makes it ever so apparent that a non-negligible percent (20%-30% maybe) of co-workers in each group chat support the cause. During Q&As, 95% of the comments are from BLM supporters making quite blunt remarks about Zuck’s decision making. Director+ levels are also vocally against Zuck’s decision (although they accept that they can’t change his mind). I’m not willing to torpedo my career progression here, and imagine others feel the same. So yeah, I’ll be keeping my mouth shut and silently nodding along with the rest while Zuck gets rocks thrown at him.
  - tech-historian 6y ago
    Really appreciate you sharing this inside perspective with us, thank you.
  - SamReidHughes 6y ago
    Jesus Christ. I wonder how many of them are aware of the thousands of deaths that have occurred because of BLM's falsehoods.
    - xnyan 6y ago
      Please go on.
      - SamReidHughes 6y ago
        They're responsible for 2015-2019 spike in the murder rate in black communities that has killed 10,000 extra people.
        xnyan 6y ago
ve55 6y ago
It's unfortunate, but I've seen it happen a lot at companies like this, from what I've spoken about privately. The worst part is those I speak to have very modest views, good intentions, and have put thought into it. But they're terrified of ever speaking up at the workplace for fear of what those that are most radicalized might try in response.
- Pils 6y ago
  In some ways this seems endemic to all organizations with >1000 or so people. It's crazy the extent that white nationalist orgs have infiltrated Law Enforcement/US military. That being said, in many ways companies/organizations are simply biased samples of the cultural milieu, so I'm not sure there is an easy company-level policy for changing this. Given the Banjo/Clearview.ai KKK/alt-right stuff, the fear of radicalized tech employees is definitely a matter of real concern, but it's definitely a hard problem.
  - prh8 6y ago
    Are you implying that these people agreeing with his decision are from white nationalist orgs? Or that they fear people from those orgs? If 1, that seems unlikely that would be the majority of people. If 2, well, that's the opposite of the case here.
    - Pils 6y ago
      I'm agreeing with the parent comment about the chilling effect that radical political groups can have on moderate dissent. White Nationalism's relationship with Law Enforcement/military is pretty well documented, and is very clearly under the umbrella of radical political movements. But if that's causing confusion, I used that as an explicit example of the phenomena the parent comment was describing. I am curious by what you mean by "well, that's the opposite of the case here." What is in your opinion the opposite of White Nationalism on the radical spectrum?
      - SauciestGNU 6y ago
lanevorockz 6y ago
I wouldn't say it is dangerous, more like it is obvious. I very rarely agree with everything my company does and yet I don't feel put off by that. The world of total conformity is the really scary thing, we will cease to be humans by then.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The danger is that what people think and what people are willing to say are systematically diverging. If true, that means that anyone who's trying to observe what people think and make decisions based on it will consistently get things wrong.
  - lanevorockz 6y ago
    That is kinda temporary, in normal companies mistakes get accountability and executives are fired. In the end, you can get on the "design by committee" trap. The problem here might be the monopoly, so it doesn't matter how bad the decision there will be no repercussions.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  > I very rarely agree with everything my company does and yet I don't feel put off by that. This situation is different in that the people who are agreeing with what their company does are feeling afraid to voice their agreement.
grumple 6y ago
The thought police will publicly shame you in every way possible if you don't score enough "woke points" with your latest post. We've seen conservative voices exiled from SV, and I suspect moderate or simply imperfect liberal voices would be treated similarly. As a pretty far-left liberal in an extended social group of extremist liberals, I've learned / am learning to just stay off social media and say nothing (easier to do this by deleting your fb/ig/whatever). Nothing you say or do can every please these people and they are very quick to destroy people when they feel slighted.
- stOneskull 6y ago
  there is some truth in what you say. tim pool makes good money talking about that kinda stuff on youtube. but yeah, those communofascist thought police.. stay away from them! treat them like the kgb. give them nothing.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  I've heard this for years, the conservative victim complex truly is one of the country's greatest examples of social engineering. No evidence of any of this stuff - it's just a boogeyman.
54351623 6y ago
Most jobs in the world aren't going to require their employees to represent a company that is presenting itself as the arbiter or defining absolute of free speech. Hell, most jobs it matters very little who you vote for or what you believe, even in the government. If these employees are uncomfortable with the position their employer is putting them in they may want to reevaluate their life choices.
neonate 6y ago
Any Facebook employees want to give us an inside view about this? Throwaway account if needed?
- Diederich 6y ago
  Most of the folks I've spoken to don't agree with Zuck's position, which I find disappointing and unsurprising. Facebook and to a lesser extent other big social media is in an impossible position. In my opinion: “Over time, in general we tend to add more policies to restrict things more and more,” he said. “If every time there’s something that’s controversial your instinct is, okay let’s restrict a lot, then you do end up restricting a lot of things that I think will be eventually good for everyone.” is right on target. I don't mean to understate or under-appreciate the damage and impact various posts can and do have. This one post by Trump will likely cause tangible harm. There are absolutely no unambiguously good and correct decisions here. Facebook and the others are in completely uncharted waters.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    This is just Facebook acting in bad faith, and glad to see many employees can see right through the charade. Facebook cares about its bottom line only. By restricting things, it decreases its income. They don't want to verify ads (my dad was just scammed the other day. I have since gotten my mom off of Facebook). They don't want to lose users, that includes nazis, white supremacists, Trump supports, far left radicals, etc. They don't care about hackers, and foreign agents influencing elections. If Facebook wishes to be a public forum then it needs to either become a utility or it needs to lose its profit incentive. Otherwise it is a private platform and should bear the consequence of the misinformation and hate it spreads.
- sevreview38402 6y ago
  I’m at FB and the nuance between supporting BLM/racial equality and preserving free speech has been lost. If you don’t think Zuck should’ve taken down Trump’s ramblings then you’ll likely be seen quite negatively by people all across the org chart, potentially including your direct and indirect superiors. Of my own team: 30% definitely support 20% probably support 50% unknown/neutral 0% definitely against I wrote more thoughts here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23411899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23411899
TechBro8615 6y ago
This is an entirely unsurprising result of eliminating reasonable discussion and rendering it professionally untenable to support the president. Welcome to the life of a conservative in tech. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of us, but I have no way of knowing for sure, because it's clear that speaking about our political beliefs can lead to negative repercussions in our career. Good luck getting a job or investment after you've publicly posted anything in line with Trump's agenda (which, btw, about 60 million people seem to at least partly agree with). The result is that the only conservatives remaining in public view are the loony ones who can afford to speak out without risking their job, don't care about their corporate reputation, or have to post from pseudonyms. People on the left see this and conclude that everyone on the right is an extremist, further assuring them that their leftist views are "on the right side of history." There should be a term for "liberal privilege" when you're able to post your political views under your real name.
- wbronitsky 6y ago
  I do not think we should make people who spread hate feel comfortable spreading that hate. The president is unequivocally spreading hate and inciting violence. He should not be able to do that when doing that is against the TOS of the site he is doing it on. Said another way, why does he get to incite violence on twitter, yet I do not? There is a distinct difference between expressing a political view, such as that we should have the government spend less money, and inciting random citizens to commit violent acts against a perceived enemy.
  - TechBro8615 6y ago
    > I feel like this is a misreading of the situation. I was referring to the quote from the article "that people who agreed with [Zuckerberg's decision] were afraid to speak out for fear of appearing insensitive," so I don't think it's a misreading of the situation. On the contrary, I'm expressing my lack of surprise, given my personal experience as a conservative in tech with a 98% liberal peer group. I am unable to talk freely about my political beliefs in the same way that, say, Biden or Bernie supporters are. I would be labeled a racist simply for agreeing with any republican point of view. Whereas I routinely see friends on Facebook getting hundreds of likes on statuses that call republican politicians "vile" or "scum." As an aside, what's particularly frustrating is how many people assume or expect that I hold the same views as them when in casual conversation. Someone will bring up Trump as if it's a foregone conclusion that he's a racist sociopath and anyone who supports him is one too, and I just have to nod along and laugh with them, or find a way to change the subject, lest I be "outed" as some sort of violent extremist for supporting the president. > The president is unequivocally spreading hate and inciting violence Unequivocally? I think you could find a lot of people who disagree with this assessment of his words. Who's to decide what is "unequivocally" an incitement of violence? > There is a distinct difference between expressing a political view, such as that we should have the government spend less money, and inciting random citizens to commit violent acts against a perceived enemy. This is a strawman, because I haven't seen Trump "inciting random citizens to commit violent acts." Regardless, of course there is a difference between political speech and inciting violence. But who is to be the arbiter of it? Because from what I've seen, certain people on the left can twist almost anything outside of their agenda to fit their definition of "violence." As a contrived example, some on the left would be "offended" by the suggestion that "a country is not a country without a strong border," equating it to "locking kids in cages." Is it violence to advocate for strong borders and criminal consequences for illegal immigration? Or is it political speech? What about when the president says it?
sultanofswing 6y ago
I want to clarify that this is in NO way verifiable. There were 0 company polls taken about this on a grand scale. Most vocal position so far has been large scale dissatisfaction with this decision. But no way to actually know if that is just a ‘vocal’ minority. So unless this person they ‘surveyed’ did some sort of independent analysis where they sampled a significant portion of the company independently, they are full of shit. To be clear I am not advocating for either position in this post (though I do have an opinion), but this is just a bold faced lie.
- sayhar 6y ago
  Exactly!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jayd16 6y ago
If there's an internal culture of fear at Facebook then why should this information be trusted? Seems like there's usually more fear when disagreeing with corporate policy, not agreeing with it.
umvi 6y ago
Browbeating is a popular way of controlling the narrative
brown9-2 6y ago
Why did you edit out the part of the quote that this was just one individual’s opinion?
nine_k 6y ago
Because the loudest, the most intolerant wins in a society of decent, nice people: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict... Also, there is no way to abate and come clean of the sin once you've been accused of it loudly enough. The accusation will stick and can ruin your entire remaining life. It's often not worth the risk if your views are moderate, and it's not a life-or-death question.
dgzl 6y ago
I'm against Antifa and am afraid to admit this in PDX, for my own safety. Left wing politics is becoming just as fascist as right wing politics used to be.

by elwell 6y ago

tech-historian 6y ago

It's not entirely clear how they came to that conclusion without any data to back it up. How could they know? Was there an internal survey or something? Or perhaps Facebook employees generally lean right maybe? Any FB employees here care to comment?

elwell 6y ago
Even if it wasn't the majority that felt that way, it's interesting to me that they felt "afraid to speak out for fear of appearing insensitive". The situation is so polarizing and dramatic, we can't hope to find an optimal solution.
Verdex 6y ago
Well, I don't they did this, but it's an interesting technique used for this sort of scenario. Unfortunately, I can't find a wiki article to explain it (I think it's something like the hugh-jones coin or something). Anyway, I think the idea was someone needed statistics on how many people were stealing things after some sort of event, but obviously they couldn't just ask people because who would admit to breaking the law. So what you do is you ask the question: "Are you stealing" then you have the person flip a coin out of your view. If the coin is heads then they answer honestly, but if the coin is tails, then they always answer yes. This way the person in question has plausible deniability (I didn't steal, I said that I did because the coin came up tails). Then once you have the data you just need to divide by half and maybe tweak some other parameters, but you end up with realistic data (or so the statisticians say).
- singhrac 6y ago
  The method is called randomized response, iirc.
  - gruez 6y ago
    I think it's actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy
Aunche 6y ago
That was the perspective of a single Facebook employee that the reporter interviewed.
ve55 6y ago
I think it's a mistake to assume that anyone who doesn't want to fact-check/remove Trump's posts has to lean right politically. There's a lot of other reasons they can have. What if all of Trump's worst posts were removed, such that every potential voter reading them then has a less-aligned view of what he supports, and decides to vote for him, when they would not have had his posts not been selectively filtered? Just one of many possibilities
- stOneskull 6y ago
  i think that the president should be able to speak to the people, and half the people want to hear it. those who don't want to hear it shouldn't block it from the others. it's jiggled into such a drama. a headache over nothing. zuck was right, about transcending the feelings, and going by principles.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Half is a vast overestimate.
sevreview38402 6y ago
I’m at FB (throwaway account for good measure). It’s impossible to tell, especially working remotely. It’s not like you can ask these kinds of questions over Workplace chat unless you’re close with other team members. But the perspective that there are people who agree with Zuck’s decision and aren’t speaking up is valid. I’m one of them despite generally agreeing with BLM _and_ being a person of color. You have people changing their profile pics to BLM icons which makes it ever so apparent that a non-negligible percent (20%-30% maybe) of co-workers in each group chat support the cause. During Q&As, 95% of the comments are from BLM supporters making quite blunt remarks about Zuck’s decision making. Director+ levels are also vocally against Zuck’s decision (although they accept that they can’t change his mind). I’m not willing to torpedo my career progression here, and imagine others feel the same. So yeah, I’ll be keeping my mouth shut and silently nodding along with the rest while Zuck gets rocks thrown at him.
- tech-historian 6y ago
  Really appreciate you sharing this inside perspective with us, thank you.
- SamReidHughes 6y ago
  Jesus Christ. I wonder how many of them are aware of the thousands of deaths that have occurred because of BLM's falsehoods.
  - xnyan 6y ago
    Please go on.
    - SamReidHughes 6y ago
      They're responsible for 2015-2019 spike in the murder rate in black communities that has killed 10,000 extra people.
      - xnyan 6y ago

ve55 6y ago

It's unfortunate, but I've seen it happen a lot at companies like this, from what I've spoken about privately. The worst part is those I speak to have very modest views, good intentions, and have put thought into it. But they're terrified of ever speaking up at the workplace for fear of what those that are most radicalized might try in response.

Pils 6y ago
In some ways this seems endemic to all organizations with >1000 or so people. It's crazy the extent that white nationalist orgs have infiltrated Law Enforcement/US military. That being said, in many ways companies/organizations are simply biased samples of the cultural milieu, so I'm not sure there is an easy company-level policy for changing this. Given the Banjo/Clearview.ai KKK/alt-right stuff, the fear of radicalized tech employees is definitely a matter of real concern, but it's definitely a hard problem.
- prh8 6y ago
  Are you implying that these people agreeing with his decision are from white nationalist orgs? Or that they fear people from those orgs? If 1, that seems unlikely that would be the majority of people. If 2, well, that's the opposite of the case here.
  - Pils 6y ago
    I'm agreeing with the parent comment about the chilling effect that radical political groups can have on moderate dissent. White Nationalism's relationship with Law Enforcement/military is pretty well documented, and is very clearly under the umbrella of radical political movements. But if that's causing confusion, I used that as an explicit example of the phenomena the parent comment was describing. I am curious by what you mean by "well, that's the opposite of the case here." What is in your opinion the opposite of White Nationalism on the radical spectrum?
    - SauciestGNU 6y ago

lanevorockz 6y ago

I wouldn't say it is dangerous, more like it is obvious. I very rarely agree with everything my company does and yet I don't feel put off by that. The world of total conformity is the really scary thing, we will cease to be humans by then.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The danger is that what people think and what people are willing to say are systematically diverging. If true, that means that anyone who's trying to observe what people think and make decisions based on it will consistently get things wrong.
- lanevorockz 6y ago
  That is kinda temporary, in normal companies mistakes get accountability and executives are fired. In the end, you can get on the "design by committee" trap. The problem here might be the monopoly, so it doesn't matter how bad the decision there will be no repercussions.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> I very rarely agree with everything my company does and yet I don't feel put off by that. This situation is different in that the people who are agreeing with what their company does are feeling afraid to voice their agreement.

grumple 6y ago

The thought police will publicly shame you in every way possible if you don't score enough "woke points" with your latest post. We've seen conservative voices exiled from SV, and I suspect moderate or simply imperfect liberal voices would be treated similarly. As a pretty far-left liberal in an extended social group of extremist liberals, I've learned / am learning to just stay off social media and say nothing (easier to do this by deleting your fb/ig/whatever). Nothing you say or do can every please these people and they are very quick to destroy people when they feel slighted.

stOneskull 6y ago
there is some truth in what you say. tim pool makes good money talking about that kinda stuff on youtube. but yeah, those communofascist thought police.. stay away from them! treat them like the kgb. give them nothing.
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
I've heard this for years, the conservative victim complex truly is one of the country's greatest examples of social engineering. No evidence of any of this stuff - it's just a boogeyman.

54351623 6y ago

Most jobs in the world aren't going to require their employees to represent a company that is presenting itself as the arbiter or defining absolute of free speech. Hell, most jobs it matters very little who you vote for or what you believe, even in the government. If these employees are uncomfortable with the position their employer is putting them in they may want to reevaluate their life choices.

neonate 6y ago

Any Facebook employees want to give us an inside view about this? Throwaway account if needed?

Diederich 6y ago
Most of the folks I've spoken to don't agree with Zuck's position, which I find disappointing and unsurprising. Facebook and to a lesser extent other big social media is in an impossible position. In my opinion: “Over time, in general we tend to add more policies to restrict things more and more,” he said. “If every time there’s something that’s controversial your instinct is, okay let’s restrict a lot, then you do end up restricting a lot of things that I think will be eventually good for everyone.” is right on target. I don't mean to understate or under-appreciate the damage and impact various posts can and do have. This one post by Trump will likely cause tangible harm. There are absolutely no unambiguously good and correct decisions here. Facebook and the others are in completely uncharted waters.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  This is just Facebook acting in bad faith, and glad to see many employees can see right through the charade. Facebook cares about its bottom line only. By restricting things, it decreases its income. They don't want to verify ads (my dad was just scammed the other day. I have since gotten my mom off of Facebook). They don't want to lose users, that includes nazis, white supremacists, Trump supports, far left radicals, etc. They don't care about hackers, and foreign agents influencing elections. If Facebook wishes to be a public forum then it needs to either become a utility or it needs to lose its profit incentive. Otherwise it is a private platform and should bear the consequence of the misinformation and hate it spreads.
sevreview38402 6y ago
I’m at FB and the nuance between supporting BLM/racial equality and preserving free speech has been lost. If you don’t think Zuck should’ve taken down Trump’s ramblings then you’ll likely be seen quite negatively by people all across the org chart, potentially including your direct and indirect superiors. Of my own team: 30% definitely support 20% probably support 50% unknown/neutral 0% definitely against I wrote more thoughts here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23411899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23411899

TechBro8615 6y ago

This is an entirely unsurprising result of eliminating reasonable discussion and rendering it professionally untenable to support the president. Welcome to the life of a conservative in tech. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of us, but I have no way of knowing for sure, because it's clear that speaking about our political beliefs can lead to negative repercussions in our career. Good luck getting a job or investment after you've publicly posted anything in line with Trump's agenda (which, btw, about 60 million people seem to at least partly agree with). The result is that the only conservatives remaining in public view are the loony ones who can afford to speak out without risking their job, don't care about their corporate reputation, or have to post from pseudonyms. People on the left see this and conclude that everyone on the right is an extremist, further assuring them that their leftist views are "on the right side of history." There should be a term for "liberal privilege" when you're able to post your political views under your real name.

wbronitsky 6y ago
I do not think we should make people who spread hate feel comfortable spreading that hate. The president is unequivocally spreading hate and inciting violence. He should not be able to do that when doing that is against the TOS of the site he is doing it on. Said another way, why does he get to incite violence on twitter, yet I do not? There is a distinct difference between expressing a political view, such as that we should have the government spend less money, and inciting random citizens to commit violent acts against a perceived enemy.
- TechBro8615 6y ago
  > I feel like this is a misreading of the situation. I was referring to the quote from the article "that people who agreed with [Zuckerberg's decision] were afraid to speak out for fear of appearing insensitive," so I don't think it's a misreading of the situation. On the contrary, I'm expressing my lack of surprise, given my personal experience as a conservative in tech with a 98% liberal peer group. I am unable to talk freely about my political beliefs in the same way that, say, Biden or Bernie supporters are. I would be labeled a racist simply for agreeing with any republican point of view. Whereas I routinely see friends on Facebook getting hundreds of likes on statuses that call republican politicians "vile" or "scum." As an aside, what's particularly frustrating is how many people assume or expect that I hold the same views as them when in casual conversation. Someone will bring up Trump as if it's a foregone conclusion that he's a racist sociopath and anyone who supports him is one too, and I just have to nod along and laugh with them, or find a way to change the subject, lest I be "outed" as some sort of violent extremist for supporting the president. > The president is unequivocally spreading hate and inciting violence Unequivocally? I think you could find a lot of people who disagree with this assessment of his words. Who's to decide what is "unequivocally" an incitement of violence? > There is a distinct difference between expressing a political view, such as that we should have the government spend less money, and inciting random citizens to commit violent acts against a perceived enemy. This is a strawman, because I haven't seen Trump "inciting random citizens to commit violent acts." Regardless, of course there is a difference between political speech and inciting violence. But who is to be the arbiter of it? Because from what I've seen, certain people on the left can twist almost anything outside of their agenda to fit their definition of "violence." As a contrived example, some on the left would be "offended" by the suggestion that "a country is not a country without a strong border," equating it to "locking kids in cages." Is it violence to advocate for strong borders and criminal consequences for illegal immigration? Or is it political speech? What about when the president says it?

sultanofswing 6y ago

I want to clarify that this is in NO way verifiable. There were 0 company polls taken about this on a grand scale. Most vocal position so far has been large scale dissatisfaction with this decision. But no way to actually know if that is just a ‘vocal’ minority. So unless this person they ‘surveyed’ did some sort of independent analysis where they sampled a significant portion of the company independently, they are full of shit. To be clear I am not advocating for either position in this post (though I do have an opinion), but this is just a bold faced lie.

sayhar 6y ago
Exactly!
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jayd16 6y ago

If there's an internal culture of fear at Facebook then why should this information be trusted? Seems like there's usually more fear when disagreeing with corporate policy, not agreeing with it.

umvi 6y ago

Browbeating is a popular way of controlling the narrative

brown9-2 6y ago

Why did you edit out the part of the quote that this was just one individual’s opinion?

nine_k 6y ago

Because the loudest, the most intolerant wins in a society of decent, nice people: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict... Also, there is no way to abate and come clean of the sin once you've been accused of it loudly enough. The accusation will stick and can ruin your entire remaining life. It's often not worth the risk if your views are moderate, and it's not a life-or-death question.

dgzl 6y ago

I'm against Antifa and am afraid to admit this in PDX, for my own safety. Left wing politics is becoming just as fascist as right wing politics used to be.