4 ms·

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 per

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

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