31 ms·
Indeed -- here is some additional context that the article doesn't provide: The fired employee Tweeted today: >In the interest of transparency, I was let go f
by mgleitub 6y ago
Indeed -- here is some additional context that the article doesn't provide:
The fired employee Tweeted today:
>In the interest of transparency, I was let go for calling out an employee’s inaction here on Twitter. I stand by what I said. They didn’t give me the chance to quit [0]
He then specifically cited [1] the Tweet in question that was the cause:
>I asked @Vjeux to follow @reactjs's lead and add a statement of support to Recoil's docs and he privately refused, claiming open source shouldn't be political.
>Intentionally not making a statement is already political. Consider that next time you think of Recoil. [2]
This is specifically targeting an individual front-end engineer at FB, which in my own estimation crosses the line from criticism of executives or general policy, to specifically trying to instigate public outrage against a co-worker. If such actions were directed at me, I would definitely consider it as contributing to a hostile work environment. It all strikes me as a modern-day example of "Havel's greengrocer" [3].
[0] https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1271522288752455680 https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1271522288752455680
[1] https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1271531477209976832 https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1271531477209976832
[2] https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1267895488205869057 https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1267895488205869057
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_the_Powerless#Havel's_greengrocer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_the_Powerless#Hav...
- rubber_duck 6y agoHe decides because he believes something strongly it permits him to publicly attack someone he works with... Imagine having to deal with this guy in a team when he has a strong opinion on something the team disagrees with ...
- holler 6y agoAgree. It's endemic of the political and cultural climate we're in right now, where mob rule is becoming the status quo. Personal politics should be just that, personal.
- dlp211 6y ago> where mob rule is becoming the status quo. The Government of the US is currently (mostly) controlled by a party that received fewer votes.
- dekhn 6y agoThat's not mob rule, that's completely and absolutely how the legal US government operates. Overturning the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment, which is no trivial task. Mob rule is entirely different: it refers to rule imposed from outside the law, possibly by a large group. Also, the "fewer votes" really only applies to the presidency, not the senate, house, or governors.
- baddox 6y ago> That's not mob rule, that's completely and absolutely how the legal US government operates. Those aren't mutually exclusive. Middle school civics class explanations of the electoral college are fine. You can understand the reasons the electoral college was created and still oppose the fact that there have been multiple recent cases where the electoral college went against the popular vote. And, not that it's particularly relevant, but I highly doubt the very people who designed the electoral college would approve of its use when it seems to routinely elect someone who lost the popular vote.
- saagarjha 6y agoOn the contrary, I think the electoral college was introduced precisely to ensure that the person who won the election was not who would win the popular vote.
- baddox 6y agoThat's certainly not the case. The electoral college was designed such that each state's legislature chooses how to attribute their electoral college votes. Many states in the first few presidential elections just had their state legislatures assign the votes. But still, I find it difficult to believe that the people who designed the electoral college would think it's okay that we held a national election, we got to see who wins the popular vote, and we still choose a different person for President.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- baddox 6y agoI can easily imagine dealing with a tweet that asks me to do something, and then another tweet that says that I didn't do the thing that was asked of me. That doesn't sound too bad to me. What am I missing?
- scaredtobeme 6y agoPublic shaming and the invocation of a mob against you?
- Grimm1 6y agoPolitics should be kept out of the workplace.
- johannes1234321 6y agoHow do you do that? Avoid talking? - might already be political ...
- cameronbrown 6y agoI'm sympathetic to this opinion just for worrying about clashing cultural expectations with co-workers. In communicating ideas in a way what may be obvious to me (because of my culture), it might not always obvious to someone else and easy to mis-interpret. At best, you're never going to change somebody's mind in a political discussion (you can only change people who are not directly participating), and at worst, there's the risk of being raked over the coils by HR or even losing your job.
- purple_ferret 6y agoNormally sure, but when politicians are using your platform (paying you) to further their own narratives, it's fair game.
- formercoder 6y agoThat depends on if you are a platform or a publisher.
- purple_ferret 6y ago"I disagree with what this platform I'm working on allows," is a valid statement an employee can bring up and unavoidably political when in reference to political speech or something that is being used to some political end. A section of some arbitrary law from the 90's doesn't define what an employee can be concerned about.
- foobarian 6y ago
- dvtrn 6y agoAnd he seems from replies and subsequent tweets to still be taking shots at the former coworker. I passively wonder if there wasn’t already some history between the two we just aren’t privy to
- hn_throwaway_99 6y agoOr this guy could just be a total asshole. Think of it another way: If you so demand that everyone post messages of support for your political stance, those messages completely lose all meaning. Does anyone in North Korea really give that much of a shit about all the praise for their "Dear Leader"? No, they just don't want to be killed or sent to a prison camp.
- FalconSensei 6y agoExactly!
- baddox 6y agoWhat do you mean by "specifically targeting an individual front-end engineer at FB?" This seems to be "targeting" the person in control of the website of that open source project, and why wouldn't this communication be targeted at that person? Targeting it at anyone else, or just tweeting into the wind, would be completely ridiculous. It also doesn't strike me as "harassment" or an "attack" or even particularly hostile. There's no threat, name-calling, or insults. What part of this is looks like harassment or hostility?
- rboyd 6y agoPublicly shaming the guy for not wanting to take a public stance? Sounds pretty close to harassment the way these Twitter brigades can go.
- baddox 6y agoWhere is the public shaming? Is there a difference between stating that you disagree with someone's actions and "public shaming?"
- saagarjha 6y agoPublicly disclosing a private conversation? No, not really.
- baddox 6y agoThat's still not public shaming, is it? It's not even a private conversation about private matters.
- cellularmitosis 6y agoYes, it was a private reply, which the facebook employee then outed publicly on twitter. >I asked @Vjeux to follow @reactjs's lead and add a statement of support to Recoil's docs and he privately refused, claiming open source shouldn't be political. That is 100% not ok.
- op03 6y agoDon't live in a disconnected dream state. This is not a normal work environment nor is it going to become one anytime soon. FB took credit for Obama's election and were given credit for Trumps. It's a political organ now. Like Fox News or CNN. Too many people within FB are acting as if they work at Walmart or something. Strap in or get out cause the stakes are as high as can be and the political drama is going to escalate.
- NonEUCitizen 6y agoWhy push for a statement on Recoil docs instead of on the front page of FB?
- waheoo 6y agoBecause bullies pick on people smaller than them.
- rumanator 6y ago> This is specifically targeting an individual front-end engineer at FB, which in my own estimation crosses the line from criticism of executives or general policy, to specifically trying to instigate public outrage against a co-worker. More importantly, it sounds like he was bullying colleagues to force them to comply with his personal desires on how to do activism by proxy. Worse, he was trying to force colleagues to risk losing their job in the process just so that they could cater to his whims.
- downerending 6y ago"bullying" is definitely the word. And no one should be forced to take a political position, especially in a work context. There's a reason why our forbears left their politics at the workplace door. Beyond that, I'd be nervous that a co-worker like this might advance to physical violence.
- zajio1am 6y ago> It all strikes me as a modern-day example of "Havel's greengrocer" While partially agreeing, i would note that "Havel's greengrocer" was more about situation where boths sides consired that speech act just as expression of power relations and loyality, ignoring its meaning. In this case it is more a case of "true believer".
- seesawtron 6y agoI initially thought it was about not taking a stance on BLM publically. EDIT: It is indeed about that!